Pedestrian fatality 42 in a 30 - Speed Kills
Discussion
So let’s just say that the witness say “hell yea he was speeding” “I think he was doing well over 50”
Would they then use the black box to prove otherwise?
For me the general public would find it hard to tell the difference in those conditions between 30 and 40 mph
Either way RIP to the guy involved.
Would they then use the black box to prove otherwise?
For me the general public would find it hard to tell the difference in those conditions between 30 and 40 mph
Either way RIP to the guy involved.
La Liga said:
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.
La Liga said:
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...What is 'management advice' likely to consist of here?
Is it a mere slap on the wrist/blip on the radar or a major black mark on his record ?
(i.e. a severe brake on any future aspirations he might have).
As for a Driver Training Course, I'm not sure how effective that's going to be.
He has 'previous' as specifically mentioned in the original IPCC report (paragraphs 159->161.
I'm left wondering whether there is a more fundamental issue here. His psychological profile.
Do the police undertake any form of psychometric testing?
You need to understand the person before you can get through to them.
Red Devil said:
What is 'management advice' likely to consist of here?
Is it a mere slap on the wrist/blip on the radar or a major black mark on his record ?
(i.e. a severe brake on any future aspirations he might have).
Blip on the radar. Is it a mere slap on the wrist/blip on the radar or a major black mark on his record ?
(i.e. a severe brake on any future aspirations he might have).
So would any other sanction (warning, final warning) below dismissal be.
If the matter has been dealt with why should it impact on his future aspirations?
Red Devil said:
As for a Driver Training Course, I'm not sure how effective that's going to be.
He has 'previous' as specifically mentioned in the original IPCC report (paragraphs 159->161.
I'm left wondering whether there is a more fundamental issue here. His psychological profile.
Do the police undertake any form of psychometric testing?
You need to understand the person before you can get through to them.
It's better than the alternative of nothing. I'm not sure people here would be too bothered about a couple of occasions of excess speed had the pedestrian not walked out in front of of the car. He has 'previous' as specifically mentioned in the original IPCC report (paragraphs 159->161.
I'm left wondering whether there is a more fundamental issue here. His psychological profile.
Do the police undertake any form of psychometric testing?
You need to understand the person before you can get through to them.
chippy348 said:
So let’s just say that the witness say “hell yea he was speeding” “I think he was doing well over 50”
Would they then use the black box to prove otherwise?
For me the general public would find it hard to tell the difference in those conditions between 30 and 40 mph
Either way RIP to the guy involved.
It's not just speed (which is what the IDR measures) it's speed for the conditions (which the witnesses observed).Would they then use the black box to prove otherwise?
For me the general public would find it hard to tell the difference in those conditions between 30 and 40 mph
Either way RIP to the guy involved.
The statements from the independent witnesses undermine a position that it was too fast for the conditions, they don't alter the position that he was doing 42mph. 42 in a 30 isn't automatically careless driving without reference to the conditions.
If their statements supported a position that his speed was too fast in the conditions then he may well have been charged, because it's now a different proposition.
The bit of this case I'm uncomfortable with is the witness statement that the car didn't appear to be going too fast.
There's a huge amount of public support for the police (quite rightly overall), and it makes me suspect that the tolerance for speed through a crossing zone will be higher for a marked police car (even without sirens/lights) than for other vehicles.
If a survey were conducted with the public where they were asked to stand next to a crossing where several vehicles were sent past at 36mph, I would not be surprised if the perception of 'speeding' were not levelled as much at emergency vehicles than for others.
Just a hunch, but it's what our minds are conditioned to accept.
There's a huge amount of public support for the police (quite rightly overall), and it makes me suspect that the tolerance for speed through a crossing zone will be higher for a marked police car (even without sirens/lights) than for other vehicles.
If a survey were conducted with the public where they were asked to stand next to a crossing where several vehicles were sent past at 36mph, I would not be surprised if the perception of 'speeding' were not levelled as much at emergency vehicles than for others.
Just a hunch, but it's what our minds are conditioned to accept.
oyster said:
The bit of this case I'm uncomfortable with is the witness statement that the car didn't appear to be going too fast.
There's a huge amount of public support for the police (quite rightly overall), and it makes me suspect that the tolerance for speed through a crossing zone will be higher for a marked police car (even without sirens/lights) than for other vehicles.
If a survey were conducted with the public where they were asked to stand next to a crossing where several vehicles were sent past at 36mph, I would not be surprised if the perception of 'speeding' were not levelled as much at emergency vehicles than for others.
Just a hunch, but it's what our minds are conditioned to accept.
Not forgetting all of the witnesses were in cars - two never saw the car approach - just heard the collision. Four were in the same taxi.There's a huge amount of public support for the police (quite rightly overall), and it makes me suspect that the tolerance for speed through a crossing zone will be higher for a marked police car (even without sirens/lights) than for other vehicles.
If a survey were conducted with the public where they were asked to stand next to a crossing where several vehicles were sent past at 36mph, I would not be surprised if the perception of 'speeding' were not levelled as much at emergency vehicles than for others.
Just a hunch, but it's what our minds are conditioned to accept.
vonhosen said:
chippy348 said:
So let’s just say that the witness say “hell yea he was speeding” “I think he was doing well over 50”
Would they then use the black box to prove otherwise?
For me the general public would find it hard to tell the difference in those conditions between 30 and 40 mph
Either way RIP to the guy involved.
It's not just speed (which is what the IDR measures) it's speed for the conditions (which the witnesses observed).Would they then use the black box to prove otherwise?
For me the general public would find it hard to tell the difference in those conditions between 30 and 40 mph
Either way RIP to the guy involved.
The statements from the independent witnesses undermine a position that it was too fast for the conditions, they don't alter the position that he was doing 42mph. 42 in a 30 isn't automatically careless driving without reference to the conditions.
If their statements supported a position that his speed was too fast in the conditions then he may well have been charged, because it's now a different proposition.
Personally I would say doing 42 through a pedestrian crossing is too fast for the location as it's highly likely to be a place where a pedestrian may step into the road, but maybe that's just my silly little view of adhering to urban speed limits....
JimSuperSix said:
vonhosen said:
chippy348 said:
So let’s just say that the witness say “hell yea he was speeding” “I think he was doing well over 50”
Would they then use the black box to prove otherwise?
For me the general public would find it hard to tell the difference in those conditions between 30 and 40 mph
Either way RIP to the guy involved.
It's not just speed (which is what the IDR measures) it's speed for the conditions (which the witnesses observed).Would they then use the black box to prove otherwise?
For me the general public would find it hard to tell the difference in those conditions between 30 and 40 mph
Either way RIP to the guy involved.
The statements from the independent witnesses undermine a position that it was too fast for the conditions, they don't alter the position that he was doing 42mph. 42 in a 30 isn't automatically careless driving without reference to the conditions.
If their statements supported a position that his speed was too fast in the conditions then he may well have been charged, because it's now a different proposition.
Personally I would say doing 42 through a pedestrian crossing is too fast for the location as it's highly likely to be a place where a pedestrian may step into the road, but maybe that's just my silly little view of adhering to urban speed limits....
Yes (based on the info I've seen here).
But it doesn't matter what my personal opinion is, when it comes to offences/sanctions it matters what the law says & how it's applied.
Convictions also aren't about blame, they are about offences proved beyond reasonable doubt.
No charges brought doesn't mean you are without blame.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff