Biker crashes and dies after being hit by a cop on the phone who gets off

[Fizzy Pies]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278048/Special-constable-Collette-Carpenter-avoids-charges-fatal-crash-despite-investigators-stating-mobile-phone-use-likely-contributed-accident.html

Fugly fat bitch.

[richfzs]

Why the fuck is she smiling, as she goes into court (presumably for the inquest) after killing somebody?

Scum.

[richfzs]

I get, kinda, that she would probably get away with the mobile phone charge.

But, she pulled out and killed a guy, that doesn't seem to be in dispute? So how is that not careless, especially since (according to the article) there was no indication that he was speeding (and evidence to the contrary) if not dangerous driving?

No charges at all?

[stevierst]

I've seen cops get a 12 month ban, and risk losing their job for a hell of a lot less than what she did. The family have been let down severely here, but on the flip side we are only seeing one side of the story, and the paps have been known to bend the truth a little just to sell papers.

A sad loss to the biking communities and the family.

[JZS 600]

She also admitted a lie in the first interview.
 
On a case like that, surely the police would ask for a breakdown of her mobile bill and you would see the times and dates that she was on the phone. A handy tip if you get knocked off by someone on the phone who later denies it!

[Pat]

The fact that she pulled out in front of the guy, who according to witness statements was riding safely & within the speed limits is surely the key point when it comes to the offence, how this doesn't constitute at least careless driving is beyond me.

To be honest, I don't think the arguement about if she was legally on the phone ie. not holding it, or illegally by having it in her hand would make much difference to the outcome in this instance, the fact was she wasn't paying proper attention to the road at least partly because she was also simultaneously involved in a conversation with her girlfriend.  There is plenty of evidence out there that it's the act of being in conversation to someone over the phone that has the main detrimental impact on driving , not the fact that they are holding it.

But as Stevierst notes, we should bear in mind that we are only getting the Daily Mail's routine sensationalist take on the story.

[Skippernick]

And they wonder why no one has any respect for the police when stuff like this happens. It will just get worse and worse and society will go to the dogs.
But its alright because our government are spending time debating whether to allow poofers to walk down the aisle, instead of concentrating on important things.

[Pat]

And they wonder why no one has any respect for the police when stuff like this happens. It will just get worse and worse and society will go to the dogs.
But its alright because our government are spending time debating whether to allow poofers to walk down the aisle, instead of concentrating on important things.

It wasn't the police's decision not to prosecute, it was those buffoons at the CPS,  Dorset police then appealed against their initial refusal to prosecute her only to be turned down again:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10226960.She_should_have_faced_charges__top_traffic_cop_s_verdict_on_fatal_accident_Special/

[Farjo]

Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good story...

"Mr Bartholomew was overtaking a number of vehicles and Miss Carpenter was emerging from the Uddens Drive junction on the A31 at 7.15am when the collision took place."

“Two drivers who were the closest to the collision stated that when Ms Carpenter pulled out her manoeuvre was safe and did not inconvenience them. This supported Ms Carpenter’s account, which stated that she checked both ways before pulling out."

“The evidence showed that Ms Carpenter was using her phone whilst driving but Ms Carpenter stated that her phone was positioned on her lap on loud speaker. There was no evidence to support that Ms Carpenter was holding her phone at the time of the collision."

The law sucks - a car can legally hit a biker who's overtaking because of some '60s case, and being one the phone has got to be distracting but is legal because she wasn't handling it. However armed with all the info you can see why she has not been prosecuted with the law as it is.

I've moved this thread into General as the Front Page is for Fazer / Club / Member news rather than tabloid tales.

[richfzs]

“Two drivers who were the closest to the collision stated that when Ms Carpenter pulled out her manoeuvre was safe and did not inconvenience them. This supported Ms Carpenter’s account, which stated that she checked both ways before pulling out."

Kind of inconvenienced Mr Bartholomew though, didn't it. As for her checking, it wasn't good enough! That should be careless driving...

“The evidence showed that Ms Carpenter was using her phone whilst driving but Ms Carpenter stated that her phone was positioned on her lap on loud speaker. There was no evidence to support that Ms Carpenter was holding her phone at the time of the collision."

The law sucks - a car can legally hit a biker who's overtaking because of some '60s case, and being one the phone has got to be distracting but is legal because she wasn't handling it. However armed with all the info you can see why she has not been prosecuted with the law as it is.

As I said right at the start, I can see why she wasn't prosecuted for the phone offence.

Mr Bartholomew was overtaking a number of vehicles and Miss Carpenter was emerging from the Uddens Drive junction on the A31 at 7.15am when the collision took place

Well, he was pretty silly to be overtaking through a junction, to be sure. Be safe out there folks!

[Farjo]

Powell Vs Moody says that if a car is emerging from a side turn and hits an overtaking m'bike, it's OK.

And it's legal to use a mobile if you're not handling it.

Both these laws suck - the former president happened when mods and rockers were a menace to society; the latter was a piss-poor compromise that achieved nice hands-free sales for Halfords and nothing else. But that's the law as it is, which is why she hasn't been prosecuted.

[Skippernick]

And they wonder why no one has any respect for the police when stuff like this happens. It will just get worse and worse and society will go to the dogs.
But its alright because our government are spending time debating whether to allow poofers to walk down the aisle, instead of concentrating on important things.

It wasn't the police's decision not to prosecute, it was those buffoons at the CPS,  Dorset police then appealed against their initial refusal to prosecute her only to be turned down again:

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/10226960.She_should_have_faced_charges__top_traffic_cop_s_verdict_on_fatal_accident_Special/

Ah yes i agree but it was a police officer (albeit a pretend one) who caused the accident.

[richfzs]

Powell Vs Moody says that if a car is emerging from a side turn and hits an overtaking m'bike, it's OK.

Both these laws suck - the former president happened when mods and rockers were a menace to society; the latter was a piss-poor compromise that achieved nice hands-free sales for Halfords and nothing else. But that's the law as it is, which is why she hasn't been prosecuted.

Didn't know that about Powell vs Moody. Regardless of president (sic :wink) case law can be changed, all it needs is balls and a decent lawyer - not something the CPS are known for.

But yes, dreadful laws both...

[Skippernick]

Powell Vs Moody says that if a car is emerging from a side turn and hits an overtaking m'bike, it's OK.

And it's legal to use a mobile if you're not handling it.

Both these laws suck - the former president happened when mods and rockers were a menace to society; the latter was a piss-poor compromise that achieved nice hands-free sales for Halfords and nothing else. But that's the law as it is, which is why she hasn't been prosecuted.

I can't remember the case but i believe that the Powell Vs Moody has been superseeded as a test case by another more favourable one, I think the lawyer who answer questions in fast bikes won it. But i might be wrong.

[Farjo]

Not that I can find. From Wikipedia (not the most reliable but...) "A recent case (Davis V Schrogin 2006) is lately quoted as a defence to Powell v Moody. However, Davis v Schrogin does not supersede Powell v Moody and that the latter is still considered in out-of-court settlements. This is because in the case of Davis v Schogin, the car driver emerged from a line of traffic to make a U-turn and not from a side road.[original research?]"

It's a pity the papers haven't launched a campaign to get this case overturned

[Skippernick]

Bugger

[Jazz999]

I'm sure her SMIDSY defense meant a lot to his family.

If she has an accident whilst using her phone she cannot claim she wasn't distracted, that's crap.

We dice with this everyday on 2 wheels, a conviction doesn't bring him back, we can only learn and really slow down if we pass junctions past traffic.

Ride safe guys

NOTHING FAZES A FOCCER!

[Chillum]

It's weird how peoples' attitude towards death on the road is affected by the mode of transport - it's almost as if (well, I know it is because I've heard it from more than one person) that because we ride bikes, and bikes are inherently dangerous - we deserve to crash and die.

Unfortunately one of those people is my wife and nothing I say or do seems to dispel this attitute she has towards bikers. I think it's because they scare her when she's out driving.

I can kind of sympathise a little, because I have a little of that towards cyclists - even though most of them use the road properly it's the minority that seem to trigger our prejudices.

[Grahamm]

Not that I can find. From Wikipedia (not the most reliable but...) "A recent case (Davis V Schrogin 2006) is lately quoted as a defence to Powell v Moody. However, Davis v Schrogin does not supersede Powell v Moody and that the latter is still considered in out-of-court settlements. This is because in the case of Davis v Schogin, the car driver emerged from a line of traffic to make a U-turn and not from a side road.[original research?]"

AIUI (IANAL) the effect of Davis vs Schrogin is that it simply makes the balance of responsibilities 50/50 in that both parties, ie the driver and the filtering/ overtaking biker are responsible for keeping their eyes open and making sure what they are doing is safe, rather than Powell vs Moody which said that it was mostly the biker's responsibility.

I hate to say it, but based on what the facts appear to be, the biker shouldn't have been overtaking at a junction and putting himself in that position in the first place, although the decision of the CPS not to prosecute despite the Police's view still stinks.

[Raymy]

This population control really does take some nasty turns at times

[locksmith]

At some time or other we have all had a lapse of concentration and pulled out when we shouldn't. Luckily most of us have got away with it.

[Dave48]

All road users have a duty of care towards others(and themselves of course).
It has been known for a long time that using a phone(legally or illegally) while driving occupies that part of the brain required for concentration/decision making. While the Governments stated aim is the reduction of road casualties-they have left this loophole for drivers to avoid prosecution for seriou offences like causing death by careless/dangerous driving.
As a motorcyclist(& cage driver) my main concern is avoidance of "situations" likely to have a harmful effect on my health/wellbeing. We know we are more likely to come off worse in any collision so try & practice "defensive roadcraft".
In these times of cutbacks in police presence on the roads & abysmal state of road repair/maintenance coupled with the average driver thinking he/she knows it all/rules dont apply to them & with little chance of being caught-why bother with these silly rules & regulations?
I wont let this stop me riding but I am well aware that there is always an element of risk outside my control but I do try & ride in a way that minimises these risks.
if the car driver in this case had been sent to prison it wouldnt have helped the rider/his family but the MESSAGE to other road users would have helped.

[goldfazer]

I interpret the above blurb to mean he was overtaking by a junction. If so, that's not a wise move. She should still have been done though.

[stevierst]

the MESSAGE to other road users would have helped.

I'd like to think that's true, but people still drive without their seatbelt 30 years after the law was passed, and they still drink drive when campaign after campaign has been advertised every year. Some drivers just don't get the message.
But yeah, she should have been done for at least driving without due care.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2

[Grahamm]

Some drivers just don't get the message.

Or they just don't think it should apply to them.