Pedestrian fatality 42 in a 30 - Speed Kills

[vonhosen]

agtlaw said:

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.

The data is from an uncalibrated device with direct witness testimony (from more than one source) saying the speed the vehicle was travelling at was not excessive, isn't it?
It doesn't say it recorded 42mph when the collision occurred does it?
It doesn't say how long before the collision the 42mph was recorded does it?
I can't see them going for a careless driving due to excessive speed on that basis.

I've no problem with him being convicted of death by careless where there is sufficient reliable evidence of it.
Only that the same rules of evidence be applied in his case as any other.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 21st July 23:07

[agtlaw]

Uncalibrated doesn’t mean inaccurate. How accurate was it?

I suspect that it isn’t more than a couple of mph out. 40/30? That’s still careless.

[agtlaw]

vonhosen said:

agtlaw said:

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.

The data is from an uncalibrated device with direct witness testimony (from more than one source) saying the speed the vehicle was travelling at was not excessive, isn't it?
It doesn't say it recorded 42mph when the collision occurred does it?
It doesn't say how long before the collision the 42mph was recorded does it?
I can't see them going for a careless driving due to excessive speed on that basis.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 21st July 23:03

Note my carefully worded response in previous post - “at the time of the accident”

[Sheepshanks]

Bigends said:

The speedo on the Police car was reading fast - so even though it only reached 42mph - it would actually have indicated 45mph - in a 30 limit on a diary car call.

Never mind the legal case, I think he got off very lightly on the misconduct hearing.

Surely there's an expectation that Officers will be honourable and admit they've done wrong? It's presented as fact that he was doing 42MPH. OK, they reconstructed (many times) the incident and the pedestrian was difficult to see, but drivers generally get punished for the outcome, rather than the offence itself.

[Sheepshanks]

agtlaw said:

Uncalibrated doesn’t mean inaccurate.

It was calibrated - there's a section in the report on it, and on checking it afterwards. It was found to be under-reading slightly.

[vonhosen]

agtlaw said:

vonhosen said:

agtlaw said:

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.

The data is from an uncalibrated device with direct witness testimony (from more than one source) saying the speed the vehicle was travelling at was not excessive, isn't it?
It doesn't say it recorded 42mph when the collision occurred does it?
It doesn't say how long before the collision the 42mph was recorded does it?
I can't see them going for a careless driving due to excessive speed on that basis.

Note my carefully worded response in previous post - “at the time of the accident”

Note my question mark.
Is there evidence of 42mph at the time of the accident?

I'm not interested in defending something if it's indefensible.
If there is sufficient evidence I'm quite happy to see him charged/convicted.
I'd just like him to subject to the same rules of evidence/process as any other driver would be in identical circumstances.

[vonhosen]

Sheepshanks said:

Bigends said:

The speedo on the Police car was reading fast - so even though it only reached 42mph - it would actually have indicated 45mph - in a 30 limit on a diary car call.

Never mind the legal case, I think he got off very lightly on the misconduct hearing.

Surely there's an expectation that Officers will be honourable and admit they've done wrong? It's presented as fact that he was doing 42MPH. OK, they reconstructed (many times) the incident and the pedestrian was difficult to see, but drivers generally get punished for the outcome, rather than the offence itself.

You can't be criminally punished for the outcome without there being a proven offence.

[agtlaw]

vonhosen said:

Note my question mark.
Is there evidence of 42mph at the time of the accident?

I'm not interested in defending something if it's indefensible.
If there is sufficient evidence I'm quite happy to see him charged/convicted.
I'd just like him to subject to the same rules of evidence/process as any other driver would be in identical circumstances.

Note I said - “If ... at the time of the accident ...” I wasn’t making the assumption you implied.

[agtlaw]

Sheepshanks said:

agtlaw said:

Uncalibrated doesn’t mean inaccurate.

It was calibrated - there's a section in the report on it, and on checking it afterwards. It was found to be under-reading slightly.

Some muppet on this thread said it wasn’t calibrated. That’s useful info, Sheepshanks.

[vonhosen]

agtlaw said:

vonhosen said:

Note my question mark.
Is there evidence of 42mph at the time of the accident?

I'm not interested in defending something if it's indefensible.
If there is sufficient evidence I'm quite happy to see him charged/convicted.
I'd just like him to subject to the same rules of evidence/process as any other driver would be in identical circumstances.

Note I said - “If ... at the time of the accident ...” I wasn’t making the assumption you implied.

And I asked the question because I don't know the answer. Not because I'm implying any assumption.
It wasn't meant as a rhetorical question.
I haven't waded through the report so I don't know, I'm just going by some of the posts I've seen on here, hence the question.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 21st July 23:19

[Bigends]

vonhosen said:

agtlaw said:

vonhosen said:

agtlaw said:

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.

The data is from an uncalibrated device with direct witness testimony (from more than one source) saying the speed the vehicle was travelling at was not excessive, isn't it?
It doesn't say it recorded 42mph when the collision occurred does it?
It doesn't say how long before the collision the 42mph was recorded does it?
I can't see them going for a careless driving due to excessive speed on that basis.

Note my carefully worded response in previous post - “at the time of the accident”

Note my question mark.
Is there evidence of 42mph at the time of the accident?

I'm not interested in defending something if it's indefensible.
If there is sufficient evidence I'm quite happy to see him charged/convicted.
I'd just like him to subject to the same rules of evidence/process as any other driver would be in identical circumstances.

From the inquest report

92. PC T concluded the data is consistent with the vehicle being stationary near to
the McDonalds restaurant on Penistone Road 300 metres prior to its collision
with Mr Bingham, the vehicle accelerated from rest to 42 miles per hour (mph).
It reached its maximum speed of 42mph, 17 metres prior to the point of impact,
at which point it began to decelerate.
93. Emergency braking was detected 8 metres prior to the point of impact; the
police vehicle had reduced its speed to 36mph at the time it struck Mr Bingham

[Sheepshanks]

vonhosen said:

You can't be criminally punished for the outcome without there being a proven offence.

Even if he admits it? There's no evidence referred to in the Penrith case where the lad was jailed for a year.

[jm doc]

La Liga said:

JimSuperSix said:

- 42 in a 30

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

Unlike the word of one police officer in a patrol car then. How good are they then and how crap must those devices be?

[vonhosen]

Sheepshanks said:

vonhosen said:

You can't be criminally punished for the outcome without there being a proven offence.

Even if he admits it? There's no evidence referred to in the Penrith case where the lad was jailed for a year.

If you admit/plead guilty to a criminal offence, then the outcome will be considered in sentencing etc.

[vonhosen]

jm doc said:

La Liga said:

JimSuperSix said:

- 42 in a 30

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

Unlike the word of one police officer in a patrol car then. How good are they then and how crap must those devices be?

Not just the word of one officer.
An officer & a device corroborating, or two officers.

Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 21st July 23:40

[vonhosen]

Bigends said:

vonhosen said:

agtlaw said:

vonhosen said:

agtlaw said:

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.

The data is from an uncalibrated device with direct witness testimony (from more than one source) saying the speed the vehicle was travelling at was not excessive, isn't it?
It doesn't say it recorded 42mph when the collision occurred does it?
It doesn't say how long before the collision the 42mph was recorded does it?
I can't see them going for a careless driving due to excessive speed on that basis.

Note my carefully worded response in previous post - “at the time of the accident”

Note my question mark.
Is there evidence of 42mph at the time of the accident?

I'm not interested in defending something if it's indefensible.
If there is sufficient evidence I'm quite happy to see him charged/convicted.
I'd just like him to subject to the same rules of evidence/process as any other driver would be in identical circumstances.

From the inquest report

92. PC T concluded the data is consistent with the vehicle being stationary near to
the McDonalds restaurant on Penistone Road 300 metres prior to its collision
with Mr Bingham, the vehicle accelerated from rest to 42 miles per hour (mph).
It reached its maximum speed of 42mph, 17 metres prior to the point of impact,
at which point it began to decelerate.
93. Emergency braking was detected 8 metres prior to the point of impact; the
police vehicle had reduced its speed to 36mph at the time it struck Mr Bingham

If the accuracy of those distances & speeds recorded can be shown to be reliable then indeed he is fortunate not to be prosecuted for death by careless.
I wonder what margin of error was quoted.

[ShampooEfficient]

Speeding alone isn't sufficient for a charge of dangerous or careless driving. So exceeding the speed limit surely can't be enough for a charge of death by dangerous or careless.

Seems logical to me.

[vonhosen]

ShampooEfficient said:

Speeding alone isn't sufficient for a charge of dangerous or careless driving. So exceeding the speed limit surely can't be enough for a charge of death by dangerous or careless.

Seems logical to me.

Correct.
It has to be that the chosen speed was excessive for the circumstances.
The prosecution case would be undermined by witnesses testimony saying it didn't appear excessive

[anonymous-user]

Bigends said:

vonhosen said:

agtlaw said:

vonhosen said:

agtlaw said:

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.

The data is from an uncalibrated device with direct witness testimony (from more than one source) saying the speed the vehicle was travelling at was not excessive, isn't it?
It doesn't say it recorded 42mph when the collision occurred does it?
It doesn't say how long before the collision the 42mph was recorded does it?
I can't see them going for a careless driving due to excessive speed on that basis.

Note my carefully worded response in previous post - “at the time of the accident”

Note my question mark.
Is there evidence of 42mph at the time of the accident?

I'm not interested in defending something if it's indefensible.
If there is sufficient evidence I'm quite happy to see him charged/convicted.
I'd just like him to subject to the same rules of evidence/process as any other driver would be in identical circumstances.

From the inquest report

92. PC T concluded the data is consistent with the vehicle being stationary near to
the McDonalds restaurant on Penistone Road 300 metres prior to its collision
with Mr Bingham, the vehicle accelerated from rest to 42 miles per hour (mph).
It reached its maximum speed of 42mph, 17 metres prior to the point of impact,
at which point it began to decelerate.
93. Emergency braking was detected 8 metres prior to the point of impact; the
police vehicle had reduced its speed to 36mph at the time it struck Mr Bingham

Based on this, which seems to be a fairly in-depth analysis of the vehicles speed, on what basis would the CPS claim there was no possible chance of a conviction? They could prosecute for speeding if nothing else, something they seem very happy to do to Joe public.

I did jury duty a couple of years ago and we spent an entire week listening to back and forth testimony which hinged entirely on the terrible quality CCTC footage from a shop that showed absolutely no evidence of the supposed crime, the end result being we returned not proven verdicts. A week wasted for a court, a jury and everyone involved when no actual evidence was presented of the alleged serious crimes committed. Following experiences like that I have to wonder why a proven speeding vehicle that kills a pedestrian can be claimed to have no possible chance of conviction. It seems highly inconsistent, even more so when we see MoP being prosecuted in huge numbers for similar speeds without the fatal outcome.

[vonhosen]

JimSuperSix said:

Bigends said:

vonhosen said:

agtlaw said:

vonhosen said:

agtlaw said:

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.

The data is from an uncalibrated device with direct witness testimony (from more than one source) saying the speed the vehicle was travelling at was not excessive, isn't it?
It doesn't say it recorded 42mph when the collision occurred does it?
It doesn't say how long before the collision the 42mph was recorded does it?
I can't see them going for a careless driving due to excessive speed on that basis.

Note my carefully worded response in previous post - “at the time of the accident”

Note my question mark.
Is there evidence of 42mph at the time of the accident?

I'm not interested in defending something if it's indefensible.
If there is sufficient evidence I'm quite happy to see him charged/convicted.
I'd just like him to subject to the same rules of evidence/process as any other driver would be in identical circumstances.

From the inquest report

92. PC T concluded the data is consistent with the vehicle being stationary near to
the McDonalds restaurant on Penistone Road 300 metres prior to its collision
with Mr Bingham, the vehicle accelerated from rest to 42 miles per hour (mph).
It reached its maximum speed of 42mph, 17 metres prior to the point of impact,
at which point it began to decelerate.
93. Emergency braking was detected 8 metres prior to the point of impact; the
police vehicle had reduced its speed to 36mph at the time it struck Mr Bingham

Based on this, which seems to be a fairly in-depth analysis of the vehicles speed, on what basis would the CPS claim there was no possible chance of a conviction? They could prosecute for speeding if nothing else, something they seem very happy to do to Joe public.

I did jury duty a couple of years ago and we spent an entire week listening to back and forth testimony which hinged entirely on the terrible quality CCTC footage from a shop that showed absolutely no evidence of the supposed crime, the end result being we returned not proven verdicts. A week wasted for a court, a jury and everyone involved when no actual evidence was presented of the alleged serious crimes committed. Following experiences like that I have to wonder why a proven speeding vehicle that kills a pedestrian can be claimed to have no possible chance of conviction. It seems highly inconsistent, even more so when we see MoP being prosecuted in huge numbers for similar speeds without the fatal outcome.

They have no corroboration for speeding, only one source that isn't an approved device for speed measurement.
Exceeding the limit itself isn't sufficient for careless driving, it has to be speed excessive for the circumstances.
The witnesses testify that the speed didn't appear excessive for the circumstances.