Policewoman driver kills biker whilst on mobile and gets let off.

Now you all see what happens daily in my country, just due to texting. Thats why we have leather strips with steel tips to smash windows when we get cut off. It works wonders, I recommend it for anybody on two wheels. Cop or not, if they move on me without paying attention, they get a wake up.

reply to post by bigyin


I'm not a Policeman, I'm a lawyer (not CPS either), so my first instinct is to look for the explanation. If you read an article about the inquest, you'll see the verdict is accidental death. Inquests are held by a coroner who is independent of the police and CPS and can and often does, order further investigations. You'll also see that the accident happened at the Uddens Drive junction of the A31 in Wimbourne, Dorset, and the 'Special Police' officer (ie a volunteer with minimal training, not an actual Policewoman) was emerging from Uddens Drive onto the A 31 when she collided with the biker who had overtaken several vehicles. Looking at the road markings, the biker must have driven over the chevrons to do so. For those of you unfamiliar with UK road markings, white Chevron markings mean 'do not cross' and are positioned where necessary to prevent accidents, usually at junctions and right turns. The UK Highway Code also prohibits overtaking at a junction.

So, granted she lied about her mobile, and granted she looks incredibly smug and self satisfied at Court, that doesnt make her a murderer. It may be she didnt look when pulling out, but an equally plausible explanation is that she saw the approaching cars, judged she had sufficent time to pull out, and didnt have time to react when the biker used his superior acceleration to blast past them on the chevrons.

Now before all the bikers start making death threats, I'm not saying that did happen, just that it is possible, that I have dealt with hundreds of claims in similiar circumstances so I know it does happen, and that the biker had apparently ignored two road traffic laws which were there to protect him.

ATS is supposed to be about reasoned discourse-if you only want to post 'Jail her for life, she's a murdering pig fascist nazi' type comment, I'm sure there are better forums for you.

It's just scary how many people don't watch for bikes period.
I was in the bank a while ago, and there was a Harley on display in the bank. There were two elderly women behind me in line. They were talking about motorcycles and how they should not be on the road, the one lady said, because her husband couldn't see them very well.

I couldn't keep my mouth shut, and said well maybe your husband shouldn't be driving any more.

Yeah, made a friend there.

Sorry, it's not the bikers fault, if you aren't paying attention. She should have been charged with something at least.

You see if that was a guy that did this he would be fired from the police force, Charged, sent to prison for approx 25 years over here in Australia if it were a female well they get a slap on the wrist (six weeks weekend detention or less) I always wonder why that Is? what does the courts have against Men they hand men out Ridiculously Long sentences for practically nothing Yet a woman Murdering someone gets a slap on the wrist? like 2 months gaol (jail)
What the....

Originally posted by lawman27
reply to post by bigyin

 

I'm not a Policeman, I'm a lawyer (not CPS either), so my first instinct is to look for the explanation. If you read an article about the inquest, you'll see the verdict is accidental death. Inquests are held by a coroner who is independent of the police and CPS and can and often does, order further investigations. You'll also see that the accident happened at the Uddens Drive junction of the A31 in Wimbourne, Dorset, and the 'Special Police' officer (ie a volunteer with minimal training, not an actual Policewoman) was emerging from Uddens Drive onto the A 31 when she collided with the biker who had overtaken several vehicles. Looking at the road markings, the biker must have driven over the chevrons to do so. For those of you unfamiliar with UK road markings, white Chevron markings mean 'do not cross' and are positioned where necessary to prevent accidents, usually at junctions and right turns. The UK Highway Code also prohibits overtaking at a junction.

So, granted she lied about her mobile, and granted she looks incredibly smug and self satisfied at Court, that doesnt make her a murderer. It may be she didnt look when pulling out, but an equally plausible explanation is that she saw the approaching cars, judged she had sufficent time to pull out, and didnt have time to react when the biker used his superior acceleration to blast past them on the chevrons.

Now before all the bikers start making death threats, I'm not saying that did happen, just that it is possible, that I have dealt with hundreds of claims in similiar circumstances so I know it does happen, and that the biker had apparently ignored two road traffic laws which were there to protect him.

ATS is supposed to be about reasoned discourse-if you only want to post 'Jail her for life, she's a murdering pig fascist nazi' type comment, I'm sure there are better forums for you.

Thanks for your input.

Can I just ask where I used the terms 'Jail her for life, she's a murdering pig fascist nazi' or did you just decide to make that part up ?

Can I also ask if among the 100's of similar cases you have dealt with has there ever been anybody charged with any offence when they were involved in a road traffic accident and they were found to have been using their mobile phone at the time ? I suspect people get charged all the time with something, so can you explain why in this particular case the CPS would decide to take no action ?

I suggested it could be down to her being a Police Constable, but I see you have down played that aspect by claiming Special Constables are somehow not real Police Officers. In fact they have the same powers as a regular Police Officer, and receive the same training and carry out the same duties.

Nobody has called her a murderer either. The fact is she was involved in an accident where somebody died. She was breaking the law by virtue of being on the phone at the time. At the very least she should be done with that.

Whether or not that contributed to the accident I would say it must have done because the police are constantly telling us that using a phone whilst driving is dangerous. Or does that rule only apply to certain people and we are saying that this particular person can actually use a phone and drive safely.

You are also trying to say that the biker may have been to blame for his own demise. I agree with you and lots of bikers do only have themselves to blame for accidents they have. But the guy is dead so he cant be charged with anything. Suppose he had survived the accident are you saying you think he would have been charged with something and the woman would still not be to blame for anything ?

reply to post by lawman27

I'm not a Policeman, I'm a lawyer (not CPS either), so my first instinct is to look for the explanation. If you read an article about the inquest, you'll see the verdict is accidental death. Inquests are held by a coroner who is independent of the police and CPS and can and often does, order further investigations. You'll also see that the accident happened at the Uddens Drive junction of the A31 in Wimbourne, Dorset, and the 'Special Police' officer (ie a volunteer with minimal training, not an actual Policewoman) was emerging from Uddens Drive onto the A 31 when she collided with the biker who had overtaken several vehicles. Looking at the road markings, the biker must have driven over the chevrons to do so. For those of you unfamiliar with UK road markings, white Chevron markings mean 'do not cross' and are positioned where necessary to prevent accidents, usually at junctions and right turns. The UK Highway Code also prohibits overtaking at a junction.

Ahhhh yeah, lets make excuses for her eh... If she did no wrong then why would she lie? Now surely you as a super smart lawyer can work that one out right?

So, granted she lied about her mobile, and granted she looks incredibly smug and self satisfied at Court, that doesnt make her a murderer. It may be she didnt look when pulling out, but an equally plausible explanation is that she saw the approaching cars, judged she had sufficent time to pull out, and didnt have time to react when the biker used his superior acceleration to blast past them on the chevrons.

Oh yeah... She lied and that and looks super happy at the hearing regarding a human being she had killed, but lets just put all that to one side, you know... Forget about it... NO...

Who said she was a murderer? Now surely you as a super smart lawyer must know that murder is when you have intent and forethought... Which clearly this was not the case and no-one said anything like what you insinuate...

Then you just go on to make a whole bunch of stuff up so that it takes away the guilt from your co-worker! And yes, she is your co-worker... The reason I say that is because YOU are part of the system! Hell you profit nicely form the system! Of course you are going to defend the damn system! No matter who the system harms or kills in the process! You sir couldn't give a damn just so long as you get your paycheck! You can make all the excuses you like, but the issue is much larger than this one incident, just see my previous post!

Now before all the bikers start making death threats, I'm not saying that did happen, just that it is possible, that I have dealt with hundreds of claims in similiar circumstances so I know it does happen, and that the biker had apparently ignored two road traffic laws which were there to protect him.

I'm not a biker but what exactly is the point of your made up story other than to defend your pig co-worker? Hmmm?

ATS is supposed to be about reasoned discourse-if you only want to post 'Jail her for life, she's a murdering pig fascist nazi' type comment, I'm sure there are better forums for you.

Now, see here was me thinking that ATS was a place to deny ignorance but you display a fair bit of it so what gives? Which is right? You know what, maybe we both are and it is just our opinion and neither of us are an "authority" (oh you love that word don't you? Make you excited does it?) on what ATS should or should not be.

See my problem is that it is IMMORAL to initiate FORCE against anyone! But your crowd loves force doesn't it... Even your name, "lawman"... Oh you just love the law don't you? More the merrier eh? Can anyone say KA CHING?

I'm ever so sorry if you do not like me or my tone, but just to let you know that it is completely fine as the feeling is very much mutual.

Btw you might want to look up "stockholm syndrome", could answer some questions for you...

Originally posted by bigyin

I think it's important that people know what this monster looks like.

Hopefully, what goes around comes around. And hopefully it comes around hard.

Originally posted by lawman27
reply to post by bigyin

 

I'm not a Policeman, I'm a lawyer (not CPS either), so my first instinct is to look for the explanation. If you read an article about the inquest, you'll see the verdict is accidental death. Inquests are held by a coroner who is independent of the police and CPS and can and often does, order further investigations. You'll also see that the accident happened at the Uddens Drive junction of the A31 in Wimbourne, Dorset, and the 'Special Police' officer (ie a volunteer with minimal training, not an actual Policewoman) was emerging from Uddens Drive onto the A 31 when she collided with the biker who had overtaken several vehicles. Looking at the road markings, the biker must have driven over the chevrons to do so. For those of you unfamiliar with UK road markings, white Chevron markings mean 'do not cross' and are positioned where necessary to prevent accidents, usually at junctions and right turns. The UK Highway Code also prohibits overtaking at a junction.

So, granted she lied about her mobile, and granted she looks incredibly smug and self satisfied at Court, that doesnt make her a murderer. It may be she didnt look when pulling out, but an equally plausible explanation is that she saw the approaching cars, judged she had sufficent time to pull out, and didnt have time to react when the biker used his superior acceleration to blast past them on the chevrons.

Now before all the bikers start making death threats, I'm not saying that did happen, just that it is possible, that I have dealt with hundreds of claims in similiar circumstances so I know it does happen, and that the biker had apparently ignored two road traffic laws which were there to protect him.

ATS is supposed to be about reasoned discourse-if you only want to post 'Jail her for life, she's a murdering pig fascist nazi' type comment, I'm sure there are better forums for you.

From the comments section in the OP's source:

A private prosecution is based on probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. A successful private prosecution would not necessarily bring closure as there will be a small probability that the phone call did not cause this death. The coroner listened to evidence from witnesses that were at the scene at the time who stated the accused pulled out correctly and safely, and also that the deceased was 'filtering'. All these factors were weighed up and the conclusion was the death was accidental. I appreciate that may not be a satisfactory outcome for the loved ones of the deceased, and I myself would be rather angry about it had it involved someone I held dear, but it would seem they are the facts of the case when looked at objectively and without applying emotion.

The cop was doing something illegal.

Much to my surprise, the motorcyclist was not.

Filtering

Perhaps they should change that. Filtering seems much more dangerous than talking on a mobile phone-on speakerphone-on your lap. Just my opinion though. The fact remains that the cop broke the law and the biker did not...

My dad is always on his bike. It's so sad because the police hand out stickers that say "Watch out for motorcycles"

This is absolutely ridiculous. She was driving without due care and attention which resulted in the death of a fellow motorist. Under any other circumstances, would this not be a case of death by dangerous driving? Manslaughter? How about the fact that she lied under oath? There's contempt, and perverting the course of justice.

Was she on her phone at the time of the accident? Yes. Is it illegal to drive whilst using a mobile phone? Yes. Did someone die as a result of her incompetence? Yes. Did she then lie in an attempt to get off? Yes.

Guilty.

I'd give her 20 years just for her smugness.

I ride a dirtbike and have scared the crap outta myself numerous times while trail riding.I feel it is half the fun.But that is all on me.I can ride as safe as I want or get a little reckless.I like to ride fast and you get into a rhythm when riding trails.The tougher they are the more I like it!!
I would never own a Street bike.And I have been rethinking this lately as i`ve never owned one.But with prices for gas and all I could save alot of money.If I did get one it would be a dual sport model.So after reading about this i`m back firmly on the side of not getting one.No matter how safe you are,it only takes one person not paying attention and "BAM".You are messed up for life or dead.
My thoughts are with the family of the victim.I hope at the very least something in civil court can be done for the relatives.Unless there is a public outcry, I don`t have much hope anything criminally will be done.

reply to post by bigyin


I actually said Jail her for life etc TYPE comment- I wasnt saying any one person used those exact words, but various posters have described her as scum, pig, etc and expressed the hope she rots in prison. The point I was making is that personal vitriol does not make a reasoned argument.

As for another poster who has said I am making excuses for my colleagues, I have no connection with the Police or CPS- I deal with civil law, not criminal.

The fact is that there were witnesses, and as another poster has already said 'The coroner listened to evidence from witnesses that were at the scene at the time who stated the accused pulled out correctly and safely, and also that the deceased was 'filtering'. All these factors were weighed up and the conclusion was the death was accidental.

Apologies if I havent credited every poster by name, I dont know how to keep going back from this reply to look up comments so I can do that.

In answer to your other point, in my personal experience, using normal hand held phones whilst driving is a menace, but in my litigation experience, it has never been the key factor in an accident. Based on 20 years experience the key factors in most accidents are excessive speed and inadequate braking distance followed closely by poor observation.

I doubt the Police would have taken any action against anyone had the biker survived. In any case, these are minor offences-the mobile phone is an £80.00 fine and there are no set penalties for breach of the Highway Code unless it constitutes careless or dangerous driving. The Police dont like prosecuting minor motoring offences-in theory they could turn up at every rear end shunt and prosecute the driver behind for careless driving, but they choose not to, but whilst I can think of several reasons why they dont, I cant claim to know for sure-its probably just that they dont want the hassle.

Honour dishonour.

A good freeman process will sought this out.

Full Commercially Liability is the key.

Demand proof of claim IN WRITTING and watch them squirm.

I suppose the only difference between professional criminals and the police, is that sometimes professional criminals get held accountable for their actions. I am not a biker but find this undeniably wrong. I offer my condolences to the family of the person who died.

reply to post by mee30

'Ahhhh yeah, lets make excuses for her eh... If she did no wrong then why would she lie? Now surely you as a super smart lawyer can work that one out right?'

I'm not making excuses-people lie after accidents, sometimes simply out of panic. The question is not whether she lied about using the phone, but whether her driving caused the death of the biker.

'Oh yeah... She lied and that and looks super happy at the hearing regarding a human being she had killed, but lets just put all that to one side, you know... Forget about it... NO...'

Thats my point-I dont condone her attitude but it is irrelevant to her guilt or innocence.

Who said she was a murderer? Now surely you as a super smart lawyer must know that murder is when you have intent and forethought... Which clearly this was not the case and no-one said anything like what you insinuate...

Again, I am simply reiterating the point-her attitude doesnt make her guilty. I thought that a dramatic comparison ie with murder, would make the point more clearly, in much the same way that people say 'i've told you a million times, when in fact its only twice.

'Then you just go on to make a whole bunch of stuff up so that it takes away the guilt from your co-worker!

I havent made anything up-I have referred to the coroners verdict, street view of the area, and the Highway Code. all of which are available to anyone who can use Google.

And yes, she is your co-worker... The reason I say that is because YOU are part of the system! Hell you profit nicely form the system! Of course you are going to defend the damn system! No matter who the system harms or kills in the process! You sir couldn't give a damn just so long as you get your paycheck!

She isnt my co-worker-I have no connection with Police or CPS as I work in civil law. You too are part of the system-your taxes fund the Police, but I'm not blaming you. And I get my paycheck regardless of the outcome of this case, since I have no connection with it whatsoever.In any case, I specialise in acting for claimants in personal injury claims and claims against insurers. If I didnt give a damn, I'd act for the insurers in defending the claims, which would be a lot less stressful.

You can make all the excuses you like, but the issue is much larger than this one incident, just see my previous post!'

That may be the case, but the post is about this one accident-if you want to start a thread about Police corruption, go ahead.

How could anyone smile after knowing their own stupidity directly led to the death of someone? Has she no soul? But this is the exact reason I have been video-recording police whenever I see them in traffic (I'm not driving, of course). They all drive highway speeds in residential areas. I'll be editing the videos together and posting them here soon enough. Another thing that pisses me off is you have people grouping together these awful cops with the few good ones like my father. And no, that is not biased. It is what it is, and if he was corrupt like the rest, i'd say it and say there was no hope left in the police force.

reply to post by votan


My grandmother told me a few incidents when my grandfather would "straighten her out" I asked why she never called the police and she said he was friends with them all and they tried to help once. Thank goodness she got the courage to stand up to him one day and he never laid a hand on her since.

I can understand, in some situations, where a law enforcement agent is let go and no charges are filed but this is not one of them. She needs to be triad as a normal citizen and not let her sit behind the shield of her department.

reply to post by Infi8nity

Yah, thugs and gangsters.

Its disgusting to the lengths which the State will go to protect their enforcers.

I think in this case we cannot blame "the Police". They wanted to prosecute. As is often the case, the CPS didn't. The CPS are at fault in that regard. However, the woman is a total scumbag, as that pic from outside court demonstrates clearly. She looks like someone without a care in the world - clearly she needs punishment as her conscience isn't suffering.

reply to post by bigyin


I would have fined her, and cut her job At the least; because she lied, I would have charged her with manslaughter.