14-02-13, 05:54 PM
(14-02-13, 05:45 PM)Farjo link Wrote: “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...
Quote:“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.
Quote: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. :rolleyes Be safe out there folks!