Pedestrian fatality 42 in a 30 - Speed Kills
Discussion
Sa Calobra said:
Even at point of impact (36mph) he was still speeding.
No excuse in speeding to a diary appointment.
Members of the public see a panda car regularly driving at speed they'll rightfully assume one rule for us, one rule for them. Driving a wedge between relations even further.
I understand the sentiment, but there actually is one rule for them & one rule for us (as far as exceeding the limit is concerned, but not as far as careless driving is concerned).No excuse in speeding to a diary appointment.
Members of the public see a panda car regularly driving at speed they'll rightfully assume one rule for us, one rule for them. Driving a wedge between relations even further.
vonhosen said:
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. 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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
The car had a black box recorder and they even tested the black box to check its accuracy, so they can prove the speed was accurate.
And they said there was "no chance" of a successful prosecution?
It really does smack of one rule for them....
Sheepshanks said:
Flibble said:
I'd assume there's no calibration of black boxes, so they wouldn't be reliable enough to use as evidence.
There certainly is, and they did a ton of checks on it again afterwards, comparing to actual speed and the car's speedo. Hence the conclusion that the actual speed was 42 and speedo indicated speed was 45.The car had video but it hadn't worked for a while (since the engine was replaced) yet no-one had reported it.
You have to wonder why the cop wasn't even done for speeding. Wonder if he'd have had the gall to plead not guilty?
He'd also stuck his personal sat-nav on the screen in such a position as it would have failed MOT. The report wonders if that might have obscured his view of the pedestrian.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 July 10:07
JimSuperSix said:
There seems to be a fair bit of solid evidence that he ran down and killed someone
No one is disputing he was driving a vehicle that collided with the decreased. The officer literally says that in his statement. So yes, if you wanted to write something no is disputing / is clearly established, then you could write, 'there's solid evidence he ran down and killed someone'... People die / are seriously injured in plenty of RTCs where the drivers aren't prosecuted.
JimSuperSix said:
and the police / CPS seem to love prosecuting people from crappy dashcam footage for trivial speeding offences
Do they? How many excess speed prosecutions have there been because of dashcam footage? JimSuperSix said:
yet in this case its just not worth the CPS pursuing? Hmm.
Where did they say that? They said there wasn't a realistic prospect of conviction. jm doc said:
Unlike the word of one police officer in a patrol car then. How good are they then and how crap must those devices be?
As has been highlighted, excess speed requires corroboration. JimSuperSix said:
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.
No, that's exactly what they couldn't prosecute for here. Are you actually reading the topic?
If you had, and understood it, you'd focus on what AGT has written if you wanted to continue to focus on your conspiracy theory.
Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 22 July 10:42
Sa Calobra said:
Even at point of impact (36mph) he was still speeding.
No excuse in speeding to a diary appointment.
Members of the public see a panda car regularly driving at speed they'll rightfully assume one rule for us, one rule for them. Driving a wedge between relations even further.
This one hundred times over.No excuse in speeding to a diary appointment.
Members of the public see a panda car regularly driving at speed they'll rightfully assume one rule for us, one rule for them. Driving a wedge between relations even further.
Stedman said:
Sa Calobra said:
Even at point of impact (36mph) he was still speeding.
No excuse in speeding to a diary appointment.
Members of the public see a panda car regularly driving at speed they'll rightfully assume one rule for us, one rule for them. Driving a wedge between relations even further.
This one hundred times over.No excuse in speeding to a diary appointment.
Members of the public see a panda car regularly driving at speed they'll rightfully assume one rule for us, one rule for them. Driving a wedge between relations even further.
However there's no evidence there's a wedge being driven 'even further' when you look at all the measurements surrounding trust, confidence and satisfaction in the police. Indeed, even 'Plebgate' didn't really do any short term damage.
Perhaps people, on the whole, have some perspective.
JimSuperSix said:
So the inquest report saying he was still above the speed limit when he hit the pedestrian is not good enough to warrant any attempt at prosecution? The lack of a calibrated speed device excuses everything? Surely the point of the the incident report is to determine to a high enough standard what actually happened, and then act accordingly, as they do with motorway crashes etc.. where they spend ages looking at skidmarks etc.. to come up with a scenario, then prosecute based on that.
The car had a black box recorder and they even tested the black box to check its accuracy, so they can prove the speed was accurate.
And they said there was "no chance" of a successful prosecution?
It really does smack of one rule for them....
The inquest can come to conclusions on that particular evidence in a way that a criminal court can't in respect of convicting for the offence of speeding.The car had a black box recorder and they even tested the black box to check its accuracy, so they can prove the speed was accurate.
And they said there was "no chance" of a successful prosecution?
It really does smack of one rule for them....
Speeding requires corroboration, they only have the black box data (however accurate it can be shown to be).
That's not a source of one rule for one & one rule for another, that's the same for all. If the video was working they would have had a second source with which to corroborate, but they didn't have that. If they had then it would perhaps be a question as to whether he was entitled to rely an exemption (which is a case of one rule for them & one for us).
Even if they could show he was speeding it wouldn't mean on it's own it was careless driving (after all exceeding the limit doesn't automatically mean you are guilty of careless driving & careless driving through inappropriate choice of speed can happen below the limit as well as above it). What undermines that is the witness statements saying they don't believe he was travelling too fast or at excessive speed for the circumstances.
That too isn't a case or one rule for them & one for us, that's how it is with everyone.
vonhosen said:
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.
Where is it laid down that a speednmeasurement MUST come from an approved device or indeed that only approved devices may be used?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.
If you find that let us all know. I don’t believe you will though.
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
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.
Where is it laid down that a speednmeasurement MUST come from an approved device or indeed that only approved devices may be used?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.
If you find that let us all know. I don’t believe you will though.
It could equally be one officer & an uncalibrated speedo.
The important thing there is corroboration, there isn't anything to corroborate the IDR data.
If the video had been working there would have been, but it wasn't.
The passenger might have corroborated it, but she couldn't because she didn't see it.
That's only really important for a potential speeding charge.
It wouldn't be the major deciding factor for a death by careless charge.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 July 11:20
vonhosen said:
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
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.
Where is it laid down that a speednmeasurement MUST come from an approved device or indeed that only approved devices may be used?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.
If you find that let us all know. I don’t believe you will though.
It could equally be one officer & an uncalibrated speedo.
The important thing there is corroboration, there isn't anything to corroborate the IDR data.
If the video had been working there would have been, what it wasn't.
The passenger might have corroborated it, but she couldn't because she didn't see it.
That's only really important for a potential speeding charge.
It wouldn't be the major deciding factor for a death by careless charge.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 July 11:20
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
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.
Where is it laid down that a speednmeasurement MUST come from an approved device or indeed that only approved devices may be used?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.
If you find that let us all know. I don’t believe you will though.
It could equally be one officer & an uncalibrated speedo.
The important thing there is corroboration, there isn't anything to corroborate the IDR data.
If the video had been working there would have been, what it wasn't.
The passenger might have corroborated it, but she couldn't because she didn't see it.
That's only really important for a potential speeding charge.
It wouldn't be the major deciding factor for a death by careless charge.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 July 11:20
(again this only really matters if you want to pursue a speeding charge, it's not necessary for a death by careless)
La Liga said:
e is right in terms of the police having to abide by the laws (unless there's justification to use exemptions etc).
However there's no evidence there's a wedge being driven 'even further' when you look at all the measurements surrounding trust, confidence and satisfaction in the police. Indeed, even 'Plebgate' didn't really do any short term damage.
Perhaps people, on the whole, have some perspective.
There doesn't need to be a measurable scale. However there's no evidence there's a wedge being driven 'even further' when you look at all the measurements surrounding trust, confidence and satisfaction in the police. Indeed, even 'Plebgate' didn't really do any short term damage.
Perhaps people, on the whole, have some perspective.
When there's a negative story in the press it's fair to say that people will form opinions based on the disportionate information available.
Its very rare to see any police car near where I live and work driving over the limit unless it's on blues. They normally amble along.
40 in a 30 is evident to everyone that drives around you when your car is covered in "Police".
Standards.
As for the passenger looking down. Abit convenient. As for the no comments, where's honesty, integrity and transparency.
vonhosen said:
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
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.
Where is it laid down that a speednmeasurement MUST come from an approved device or indeed that only approved devices may be used?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.
If you find that let us all know. I don’t believe you will though.
It could equally be one officer & an uncalibrated speedo.
The important thing there is corroboration, there isn't anything to corroborate the IDR data.
If the video had been working there would have been, what it wasn't.
The passenger might have corroborated it, but she couldn't because she didn't see it.
That's only really important for a potential speeding charge.
It wouldn't be the major deciding factor for a death by careless charge.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 July 11:20
(again this only really matters if you want to pursue a speeding charge, it's not necessary for a death by careless)
Sa Calobra said:
There doesn't need to be a measurable scale.
When there's a negative story in the press it's fair to say that people will form opinions based on the disportionate information available.
It was always thus. When there's a negative story in the press it's fair to say that people will form opinions based on the disportionate information available.
Sa Calobra said:
Its very rare to see any police car near where I live and work driving over the limit unless it's on blues. They normally amble along.
No surprise then there’s too few for demand. Sa Calobra said:
40 in a 30 is evident to everyone that drives around you when your car is covered in "Police".
Agreed. He shouldn’t have been speeding. Sa Calobra said:
As for the passenger looking down. Abit convenient.
Indeed. It could be true (I’d suggest it was more likely to be if they gave a statement prior to legal advice which I believe they did. If not then they’re playing the same game as they face. Wouldn’t want double standards!
Sa Calobra said:
As for the no comments, where's honesty, integrity and transparency.
That has nothing to do with it. If you want a full ‘fact finding’ approach, then remove the risk of prosecution. Whilst that exists, then it’s perectly reasonable to expect the officer to do what is best for them in the interview.
Again, except this time it isn’t tongue in check, no double standards when it comes to a suspect’s rights.
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
ghe13rte said:
vonhosen said:
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.
Where is it laid down that a speednmeasurement MUST come from an approved device or indeed that only approved devices may be used?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.
If you find that let us all know. I don’t believe you will though.
It could equally be one officer & an uncalibrated speedo.
The important thing there is corroboration, there isn't anything to corroborate the IDR data.
If the video had been working there would have been, what it wasn't.
The passenger might have corroborated it, but she couldn't because she didn't see it.
That's only really important for a potential speeding charge.
It wouldn't be the major deciding factor for a death by careless charge.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 July 11:20
(again this only really matters if you want to pursue a speeding charge, it's not necessary for a death by careless)
Where two officers giving opinion of excess speed that opinion must be formed independently of each other at the same time.
As far as I'm aware the CPS won't proceed with speeding offences on evidence provided from a single non approved measurement device. I'm quite happy for it to proven to the contrary.
Different rules apply on motorways to other roads.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff