Another prove your innocence case

[poo at Paul's]

saaby93 said:

How would this one have gone if it wasnt for the dashcam evidence?
https://www.rugbyadvertiser.co.uk/news/crime/elder...

Quite interesting, the judge saying that when she looked he as so far away that HAD HE BEEN DOING SPEED LIMIIT, she had time to pull out.
That's quite a claim, bearing in mind that when one looks, you surely have to be able to "judge" the speed to some degree, ie a milkfloat or cyclist doing 30mph, vs cars and trucks doing 50, or indeed a truck doing 20!
Bike doing 60, vs bike doing 100? Him doing a hundred "when she looked" (assuming he probably braked quite a lot) means he hit the side of her car. How much room would she have left him had he been doing 60? All sounds a bit tight of a manouever to me?

I am not saying judge is wrong, but him doing 60 and it is a "safe, non careless" manouever, vs him doing 100 at the point she looked and he is dead?

[otolith]

50mph limit, apparently, and "in excess" of 100mph.

This is it;

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.306721,-1.238968...

I think if she'd been hit by a car doing those speeds, she'd have probably died and the other driver would probably have gone down.

[Drawweight]

Devils advocate but would being 83 factor into whether she was able to judge the bikes speed?

I would hope that her eyesight was tested after the incident but I really wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t.

[saaby93]

poo at Paul's said:

saaby93 said:

How would this one have gone if it wasnt for the dashcam evidence?
https://www.rugbyadvertiser.co.uk/news/crime/elder...

Quite interesting, the judge saying that when she looked he as so far away that HAD HE BEEN DOING SPEED LIMIIT, she had time to pull out.
That's quite a claim, bearing in mind that when one looks, you surely have to be able to "judge" the speed to some degree, ie a milkfloat or cyclist doing 30mph, vs cars and trucks doing 50, or indeed a truck doing 20!
Bike doing 60, vs bike doing 100? Him doing a hundred "when she looked" (assuming he probably braked quite a lot) means he hit the side of her car. How much room would she have left him had he been doing 60? All sounds a bit tight of a manouever to me?

I am not saying judge is wrong, but him doing 60 and it is a "safe, non careless" manouever, vs him doing 100 at the point she looked and he is dead?

ok suppose youre the judge and without the dashcam evidence you have to assume the biker is doing say less than 50mph
Does being 83 count against her? or is 93 the new 83?
Would she have been convicted?
In her shoes - how do you prove your innocence?

[poo at Paul's]

saaby93 said:

ok suppose youre the judge and without the dashcam evidence you have to assume the biker is doing say less than 50mph
Does being 83 count against her? or is 93 the new 83?
Would she have been convicted?
In her shoes - how do you prove your innocence?

She doesnt have to prove her innocence.

I am just saying that a manoeuver of pulling out deemed to be safe based on a bike that she says she saw and doing 50 mph, vs, one doing 100 that results in a death, is a big call. Bearing in mind that for it not to be careless at 50, there would have to be room for the bike to continue at 50mph without braking or swerving, whereas unless biker was asleep, as soon as she pulled out on him at 100, i bet he slammed the anchors on, and still hit her car. So was he really in a position when she pulled out that would have meant he could carry on at 50 mph and not come even close to her car, she would be well clear?
Now if the judge meant that if he was doing 50, he would have been able to brake to a stop to avoid hitting her and dying, i get that absolutely......but would that not mean her manouever was careless?
As i say an interesting decision and quite some call, i reckon.

If it were a police car on blues and twos? Maybe she would claim she would assume it was going faster.

[otolith]

poo at Paul's said:

She doesnt have to prove her innocence.

I am just saying that a manoeuver of pulling out deemed to be safe based on a bike that she says she saw and doing 50 mph, vs, one doing 100 that results in a death, is a big call. Bearing in mind that for it not to be careless at 50, there would have to be room for the bike to continue at 50mph without braking or swerving, whereas unless biker was asleep, as soon as she pulled out on him at 100, i bet he slammed the anchors on, and still hit her car. So was he really in a position when she pulled out that would have meant he could carry on at 50 mph and not come even close to her car, she would be well clear?
Now if the judge meant that if he was doing 50, he would have been able to brake to a stop to avoid hitting her and dying, i get that absolutely......but would that not mean her manouever was careless?
As i say an interesting decision and quite some call, i reckon.

If it were a police car on blues and twos? Maybe she would claim she would assume it was going faster.

Hmm, I think you're filling in some gaps there that it doesn't actually say anything about.

The words of the prosecutor were;

"When she looked, he would have been so far away that she concluded it would be safe [to pull out], and had he been doing the speed limit, she would have been able to do so"

There isn't much detail in there of what she did or did not see or think.

50mph is 22.4 meters per second, 100mph is 44.7 meters per second. She was crossing the major road, not joining it. How long does an old woman take to look both ways, decide to go, and drive across a main road? Dunno. I marked 1, 2, 3, and 4 seconds from impact in each direction at 50mph and 100mph to try to get a feel for it.


50mph



100mph.



Keeping in mind they said "in excess of", not @ 100.