Officer 'speeding when girl hit'
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/3753032.stm
So how long before coppers just tootle to the crime scene at 5mph below the limit - just to be on the safe side.
Blues and Twos blaring.
I'm terribly sorry for the lass. But she must, without doubt, share the blame for this tragedy...
>>> Edited by Don on Monday 18th October 14:37
bbc said:
Officer 'speeding when girl hit'
Pc Stephen Norman arrives at Aylesbury Crown Court
A policeman accused of causing death by dangerous driving was travelling at 60mph in a 30mph zone as he answered a 999 call, a court has heard.
Pc Steve Norman, 44, was charged following the death of Oxford Brookes University student Emily Higson, 22, outside a bar on 16 November last year.
Ms Higson was crossing the road after a night out when she was hit.
Pc Norman, who pleads not guilty, was answering a 999 call after a robbery and had his lights and sirens on.
Prosecutor Mark Norman told a jury at Aylesbury Crown Court that the sociology and anthropology student was thrown into the air by the force of the impact and landed 75ft away.
He said witnesses differed on whether she ran or strode into the road, but added: "She moves out, straight out. She appears not to have heard the sirens.
"She doesn't wait for the crossing, she moves straight out into the road."
Ms Higson died in hospital shortly after she was knocked down
Pc Norman told fellow Thames Valley Police officers in an interview that he did not see Ms Higson coming out into the road until she was about 10 or 15m away.
But Pc Claire Argent, who was in the car with him, said Emily took her first step on to the crossing when the car was about 40 or 50 metres away, Mr Norman said.
Pc Norman braked and swerved but the student was hit by the front nearside of the patrol car, which he admitted was doing between 50mph and 60mph.
The officers stopped and tried to help Emily but there was a "violent confrontation" with angry people at the scene.
Mr Norman told jurors that one of the questions they needed to ask themselves in trying the case was "did the defendant's driving fall far below the standard of a competent and careful driver?"
He said police were entitled to ignore traffic regulations "provided always that it is safe and necessary to do so".
The trial continues.
So how long before coppers just tootle to the crime scene at 5mph below the limit - just to be on the safe side.
Blues and Twos blaring.
I'm terribly sorry for the lass. But she must, without doubt, share the blame for this tragedy...
>>> Edited by Don on Monday 18th October 14:37
Was the driver able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear? No.
Was he following the principles of Roadcraft? No.
A BiB friend of mine had a minor accident PolAcc) and during the subsequent investigation it was drilled into him (by the investigating TrafPol) that you ONLY make progress where appropraite.
Clearly this wasn't an appropriate speed for the conditions.
Was he following the principles of Roadcraft? No.
A BiB friend of mine had a minor accident PolAcc) and during the subsequent investigation it was drilled into him (by the investigating TrafPol) that you ONLY make progress where appropraite.
Clearly this wasn't an appropriate speed for the conditions.
ca092003 said:The road may have been clear until the pedestrain stepped out. What level of paranoia is appropriate? There could be small children crouching ready to jump out from behind parked cars everywhere. You'd be unable to stop if they timed it right, provided you were travelling at more than 10mph. I don't see anyone driving at 10mph past this sort of obstruction (advanced drivers included). Surely you have to make judgements about what is likely and base your actions on that. Officer made the wrong call on this occasion. Maybe he should have known better given the time of night and the age of the pedestrians.
Was the driver able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear? No.
Friend of mine was on a shout, lights, sirens and all... Some old codger who probably passed his test in a Ford Model T, decided on a "U" turn in front of him !! He T-Boned the old boys car, killing him.. Was off work for a while phsycologially wrecked, as was being prosecuted for dangerous/wreckless driving - Result: (rightly) got off the charge then was given gun and works on Diplomatic Protection 
>> Edited by ws6 on Monday 18th October 14:50
>> Edited by ws6 on Monday 18th October 14:50
The issue here is not the fact the copper was on a 999 call.
The most important factor for the cops on a 999 call must be getting to the scene, quickly maybe but more importantly safely.
This copper, I assume, never got to the scene of the 999 call due to this collision and having to deal with that.
In this case there is the potential for the 999 caller to suffer further and obviously the death of the student in the collision.
Had the copper been doing a more suitable speed, assuming of course his speed was a factor and the student didnt drunkenly stagger in to the road, the collision may not have occurred and he would have been able to attend the 999 call.
This is an example of why getting to the scene of the 999 call as quickly as possible should not be the top priority, but moreso getting there safely, for all concerned.
The most important factor for the cops on a 999 call must be getting to the scene, quickly maybe but more importantly safely.
This copper, I assume, never got to the scene of the 999 call due to this collision and having to deal with that.
In this case there is the potential for the 999 caller to suffer further and obviously the death of the student in the collision.
Had the copper been doing a more suitable speed, assuming of course his speed was a factor and the student didnt drunkenly stagger in to the road, the collision may not have occurred and he would have been able to attend the 999 call.
This is an example of why getting to the scene of the 999 call as quickly as possible should not be the top priority, but moreso getting there safely, for all concerned.
ca092003 said:
Was the driver able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear? No.
Was he following the principles of Roadcraft? No.
A BiB friend of mine had a minor accident PolAcc) and during the subsequent investigation it was drilled into him (by the investigating TrafPol) that you ONLY make progress where appropraite.
Clearly this wasn't an appropriate speed for the conditions.
Fair point. But is it reasonable, as a driver, to assume that an adult pedestrian will look, listen and judge when to cross the road.
Nearly all drivers make this assumption on a daily basis as they drive down urban roads with pavements.
This particular driver had a blaring siren and lights to further underline his vehicle's presence. Given this extra announcement of the approach of the vehicle the officer was making progress above the speed limit.
We weren't there and will never know for sure if the assumption the officer made (adult pedestrian would not step into the road given blues and twos) was reasonable. The court is currently determining whether or not it was.
Very sad in any case.
swilly said:
The issue here is not the fact the copper was on a 999 call.
The most important factor for the cops on a 999 call must be getting to the scene, quickly maybe but more importantly safely.
This copper, I assume, never got to the scene of the 999 call due to this collision and having to deal with that.
In this case there is the potential for the 999 caller to suffer further and obviously the death of the student in the collision.
Had the copper been doing a more suitable speed, assuming of course his speed was a factor and the student didnt drunkenly stagger in to the road, the collision may not have occurred and he would have been able to attend the 999 call.
This is an example of why getting to the scene of the 999 call as quickly as possible should not be the top priority, but moreso getting there safely, for all concerned.
Well argued, sir.
If we had made it a serious criminal offense to step into the road without a crossing point or whatever, I am sure millions and millions of lives would have been saved, this one included.
There will be a speed camera on taht there road in no time, because that would have solved the problem...
There will be a speed camera on taht there road in no time, because that would have solved the problem...
MEMSDesign said:
Was the driver able to stop in the distance he could see to be clear? No.
The road may have been clear until the pedestrain stepped out. What level of paranoia is appropriate? There could be small children crouching ready to jump out from behind parked cars everywhere. You'd be unable to stop if they timed it right, provided you were travelling at more than 10mph. I don't see anyone driving at 10mph past this sort of obstruction (advanced drivers included). Surely you have to make judgements about what is likely and base your actions on that. Officer made the wrong call on this occasion. Maybe he should have known better given the time of night and the age of the pedestrians.
I think your comment on taking account what is likely is relevant here. Driving, like everything else that requires mobility (walking, ski-ing, etc), has an element of risk associated with it. Humans are usually pretty good at achieving an acceptable level of risk for themselves and others. Sadly it appears that on this occasion the process failed, but perhaps there was some alcohol-induced impairment of risk assessment on one side and some adrenaline-induced impairment on the other. One was voluntary and the other wasn't. It will be interesting to see who gets the blame.
mungo said:
Thats all fair comment but at 2am in any city centre outside bars you get loads of people milling around in a drunk state like zombies too pissed to be aware of things and they often wander randonly onto the road heads down texting on their mobiles, often causing taxi's etc to stop to avoid running them over...
Don is right though - We were not there. We didn't see what happened and we cannot comment on who was at fault
Well said. On a Fri/Sat night after about 8pm, I assume *everyone* is hammered and will leap out in front of me.
Poor bloke. He's going to be crucified I suspect.
gh0st said:
If we had made it a serious criminal offense to step into the road without a crossing point or whatever, I am sure millions and millions of lives would have been saved, this one included.
There will be a speed camera on taht there road in no time, because that would have solved the problem...
I'm not sure about a serious criminal offence but I'd certainly like to see some sort of jay-walking law. We have to be sending completely the right message. That the road is a dangerous place and should be avoided by pedestrains if at all possible.
Tragic not only for the n.o.k of the Pedestrian but also the Police Driver.
The final para in my Manual of Police Driving Instruction (circ 1964) and as far as I am aware still applies today :
"Remember that a Police Officer must never be involved in an accident. No police call is so urgent as to justify an accident. It is far better that a criminal should escape for the time being than that the crew of a Police car and other road users should be exposed to grave risk of injury."
A second point I would make is that perhaps the PC has been charged as stated in order that the matter can be aired in public and an open decision made rather that a decision of no action made out of the public domain.
Certain things in my day a file was written up for prosecution and the magistrates to decide. Justice not only done but seen to be done.
Which causes the greater outcry - no action or PC acquitted?
DVD
The final para in my Manual of Police Driving Instruction (circ 1964) and as far as I am aware still applies today :
"Remember that a Police Officer must never be involved in an accident. No police call is so urgent as to justify an accident. It is far better that a criminal should escape for the time being than that the crew of a Police car and other road users should be exposed to grave risk of injury."
A second point I would make is that perhaps the PC has been charged as stated in order that the matter can be aired in public and an open decision made rather that a decision of no action made out of the public domain.
Certain things in my day a file was written up for prosecution and the magistrates to decide. Justice not only done but seen to be done.
Which causes the greater outcry - no action or PC acquitted?
DVD
And if it had been an ambulance on its way to an emergency pick up of, say, your child?
You would certainly want that vehicle to arrive at your place as quickly as possible and by all means speeding if necessary.
Sadly, once in a while, it all goes terribly wrong and can end in tragedy.
If the blue lights were flashing and the siren going, I think it unfair that the Bib should be simply crucified for speeding - unless of course the victim was deaf and/or blind - or both.
Apart from being deaf and blind, how can anyone walk out stright in front of an emergency vehicle with sirens and light on?
You would certainly want that vehicle to arrive at your place as quickly as possible and by all means speeding if necessary.
Sadly, once in a while, it all goes terribly wrong and can end in tragedy.
If the blue lights were flashing and the siren going, I think it unfair that the Bib should be simply crucified for speeding - unless of course the victim was deaf and/or blind - or both.
Apart from being deaf and blind, how can anyone walk out stright in front of an emergency vehicle with sirens and light on?
Davel said:
Apart from being deaf and blind, how can anyone walk out stright in front of an emergency vehicle with sirens and light on?
Bladdered. The lass was on the way home after a night out. Not saying she was pissed - we'll never know - but this is a possible explanation for her otherwise inexplicable behaviour.
If a driver drinks that driver is (rightly) pilloried for it. Surely a driver should recieve some leniency if it is shown that the pedestrian contributed to the accident - especially if the pedestrian was drunk...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff