SMIDSY policewoman on phone kills biker [Archive] - SV650.org

ChrisCurvyS

14-02-13, 10:56 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278048/Collette-Carpenter-Death-crash-policewoman-escapes-prosecution-mobile-phone--lap.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278048/Collette-Carpenter-Death-crash-policewoman-escapes-prosecution-mobile-phone--lap.html)

I don't understand this - surely regardless of the mobile phone issue, she should still face charges for death by careless driving? She failed to give way, pulled out on him and there's no suggestion the biker was speeding?

There may be more to it of course but certainly seems completely wrong. Mind you a hapless jury did clear a SMIDSY driver of a death by careless in a similar case recently (literally the driver's defence was 'I didn't see him@) so perhaps the CPS have decided it's not worth pressing charges.

a_monkey_hint

14-02-13, 11:09 AM

That is unbelievable!

Mat H

14-02-13, 11:13 AM

Thats rediculous, I think she should get what anyone else would have been charged with.

Purity14

14-02-13, 11:15 AM

If she was charged she wouldn't be able to continue her job as a policewoman.

Think of it this way:

Every time she gives someone a ticket for mobile phone use in the future, she will be reminded of the fact that she is a murderer.

Every time her phone rings or beeps whilst she is driving, she will be reminded of the fact that she is a murderer.

She might even kill herself.

granty92

14-02-13, 11:19 AM

that is actually disgusting!

Spank86

14-02-13, 11:20 AM

If she was charged she wouldn't be able to continue her job as a policewoman.
.
Oh well thats okay then.

When I murder fallout I'll use that as my defence, I couldn't fix phone lines from inside a prison cell.

Runako

14-02-13, 11:34 AM

Oh well thats okay then.

When I murder fallout I'll use that as my defence, I couldn't fix phone lines from inside a prison cell.

I had to have a chuckle at this. But it does emphasise the ridiculousness of the decision.

yorkie_chris

14-02-13, 11:44 AM

A CPS spokeswoman said it did not have enough evidence to charge Miss Carpenter with causing death by careless or dangerous driving.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/13/article-2278048-178D1334000005DC-0_634x415.jpg

Are you f***ing kidding?

Purity14

14-02-13, 11:48 AM

Course they are kidding, otherwise how could you turn up to court with a nice joyful smile and a spring in your step... y'know after murdering someone and lying about using the phone...
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/02/13/article-2278048-178D0EDA000005DC-749_306x593.jpg

Wideboy

14-02-13, 11:59 AM

How coukd she have answered or made the call without at some point handling the phone?

Dipper

14-02-13, 12:08 PM

It's very difficult to get Jury's to convict, however clear cut it seems it's usually a case of "There but for the grace of God go I"

Fallout

14-02-13, 01:09 PM

yorkie_chris

14-02-13, 01:13 PM

She ticks enough minority boxes to be completely immune from any prosecution...
-copper
-female
-carpet shark

If she was a bit disabled as well (I know she's a bit ugly but I don't think that's quite enough) she could have skidded through a bus stop full of nuns with 12 pints inside her on her way home from getting a new "I love jimmy saville" tattoo and get a commendation for it.

Redmist

14-02-13, 01:15 PM

NTECUK

14-02-13, 01:24 PM

Lets hope someone does a civil prosecution .

Fallout

14-02-13, 01:32 PM

If she was a bit disabled as well (I know she's a bit ugly but I don't think that's quite enough) she could have skidded through a bus stop full of nuns with 12 pints inside her on her way home from getting a new "I love jimmy saville" tattoo and get a commendation for it.

:smt005 :smt039

Doinitmyway

14-02-13, 01:42 PM

Lets hope someone does a civil prosecution .

Lets hope so, and the Police / CPS wonder why they are loosing a bit of respect amongst the people............

ChrisCurvyS

14-02-13, 01:45 PM

The only conclusion I can draw from this is it's totally fine to pull out in front of people and cause an accident, so long as you say you didn't see them. Then it's not careless. So long as you say you looked in their direction and weren't distracted and didn't see them, you're fine.

Incredible!
That's the worrying thing. I always thought it if you're at fault in an accident and you kill somone, you're held liable - no excuses - but it looks worryingly like this case has set a precedent:

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2012/July/jul0512-smidsy-driver-cleared-over-death/

kiggles

14-02-13, 01:49 PM

that is disgusting. no doubht because shes an officer they were lenient.

i hate seeing the picture of her smile on her face as if she is happy she got away with it!!!

Fallout

14-02-13, 01:49 PM

I think in some situations cops need a break. Ya know, if they're speeding to try and catch a criminal and an accident occurs, don't hang them out to dry! They were attempting to uphold the law and made a mistake. If they're gassing on the phone to their lover and kill someone like this they need to have the full force of the law brought down on them. They should represent a higher standard of behaviour and this includes driving (especially since she completed some sort of safety course).

This definitely makes me feel like the Specials are probably infested with a bunch of muppets. How can we respect them if they're allowed to accidentally kill people because their brains aren't capable of processing visual information? That's basically what they're saying ... "Ahh you brain wasn't able to determine that motorcycle was a motorcycle when you looked at it, so it's not your fault. Carry on Officer Little-Thicky-Two-Shoes.", because any other explanation (not looking, not paying attention etc.) would've been some sort of offence.

dizzyblonde

14-02-13, 02:01 PM

What relevance is it that she was a rug muncher?

Who cares who she was on the phone to

Burn the witch!:evil:

TamSV

14-02-13, 02:04 PM

Lets hope so, and the Police / CPS wonder why they are loosing a bit of respect amongst the people............

But the Police charged her. The CPS prosecuted. What else would you have them do?

It was a group of our peers that let her off. We're ******s we are. I hate us all. :p

EDIT: I just read that report properly and seem to have it all completely wrong. Too many people are looking at this thread for me to quickly delete it and hide my shame.

We're all still ******s though.

Fallout

14-02-13, 02:06 PM

What relevance is it that she was a rug muncher?

It's relevant because it helps YC form a really cynical non-PC joke. If she was straight he might've had to have left a normal comment or not commented at all, and then all our days would be slightly less enriched. :study:

NTECUK

14-02-13, 02:10 PM

But the Police charged her. The CPS prosecuted. What else would you have them do?

It was a group of our peers that let her off. We're ******s we are. I hate us all. :p

EDIT: I just read that report properly and seem to have it all completely wrong. Too many people are looking at this thread for me to quickly delete it and hide my shame.

We're all still ******s though.

you sure ?
the Crown Prosecution Service said there was no evidence she had committed an offence because the phone was on her lap and set to loudspeaker.Read more:*http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278048/Collette-Carpenter-Death-crash-policewoman-escapes-prosecution-mobile-phone--lap.html#ixzz2Kslulmb8*Follow us:*@MailOnline on Twitter*|*DailyMail on Facebook

Fallout

14-02-13, 02:12 PM

How do they know it was in her lap? Phone's don't log that data. Basically it was her 5th version of the lies she told and the only version they couldn't disprove using phone records.

TamSV

14-02-13, 02:12 PM

you sure ?

Not at all. Read my edit.

ehhsee

14-02-13, 02:25 PM

*shakes head in disbelief*

yorkie_chris

14-02-13, 02:28 PM

How do they know it was in her lap? Phone's don't log that data. Basically it was her 5th version of the lies she told and the only version they couldn't disprove using phone records.

Attempting to pervert the course of justice? Or does that not cover it?

Fallout

14-02-13, 02:36 PM

Obviously you're allowed to lie as many times as you like, so long as you get to a story that can't be disproved in the end. :rolleyes:

Owenski

14-02-13, 03:07 PM

**** like this makes me not want to ride anymore, that makes me angry.
Almost as angry as seeing that look on the bitches face, how can you be smug about killing a man. I hope as she works with the public that any biker who has a run in with her gives her hell.

**** the phone, she pulled out on the guy. She made an active decision that lead to a man loosing his life. If drivers are no longer held accountable for that **** then seriously what is the ****ing point anymore?

I know its a while ago but RIP David Bartholomew, I'm sure your life deserved more than this "justice".

Spank86

14-02-13, 03:15 PM

I can only imagine the amount of hassle she's gonna get if she's recognised while being a special. She deserves it too.

Fallout

14-02-13, 03:18 PM

^True. Normally I see both sides of the story but I can't see the other side this time. There literally isn't one, is there? She killed someone because her eyeball->brain feedback loop is deficient. At the very least she should be permanently banned from driving.

yorkie_chris

14-02-13, 03:30 PM

I know its a while ago but RIP David Bartholomew, I'm sure your life deserved more than this "justice".

Hear hear.

NTECUK

14-02-13, 03:40 PM

and David Blackburn, rip :(

Owenski

14-02-13, 03:58 PM

I think the lesson here is dont be called David.

disco2

14-02-13, 04:33 PM

This just isn't right they will nick you for speeding but if your in your car work as a special **** you can pull out kill someone and walk away with a smile.....

Is it possible for anyone to bring civil action against the fur burglar.
If so why don't we all do it as a group thing or we could just shot her a say we didn't see her.......

missyburd

14-02-13, 04:43 PM

Almost as angry as seeing that look on the bitches face, how can you be smug about killing a man. I hope as she works with the public that any biker who has a run in with her gives her hell.

Clearly just relieved she's got away with it, stupid cow. What a travesty. Shocked.

If she was charged she wouldn't be able to continue her job as a policewoman.

And there's not enough out there as it is so we cannot possibly let go of another...why the **** she should still have her job is beyond me.

tonyk

14-02-13, 04:49 PM

Calling all the coppers / lawyers on this forum help on this. comment please.

Is this not a new precedent in the mobile phone law ?................
........Every Xucker can say it was on their lap as their defence…
…it’s okay because of this case.

other forums are talking about this also.

NTECUK

14-02-13, 04:51 PM

..

Is it possible for anyone to bring civil action against the fur burglar.
If so why don't we all do it as a group thing or we could just shot her a say we didn't see her.......

I would think his family will do this.

yorkie_chris

14-02-13, 04:51 PM

Edit: @tonyk

I don't think so, because she wasn't prosecuted, it wasn't brought to law. As such I don't think it sets a precedent anyone else can rely on.

Bluepete

14-02-13, 05:14 PM

NTECUK

14-02-13, 05:59 PM

Charge her with a death by due care and let the jury decide
This is what confuses me on this and the other quoted crash ?

Dipper

14-02-13, 06:09 PM

Charge her with a death by due care and let the jury decide
This is what confuses me on this and the other quoted crash ?

Apparently jury's rarely convict because they could imagine themselves doing the same thing.

Spank86

14-02-13, 06:42 PM

I find this incident quite a contrast with the guy who was convicted for hitting the girl in dark clothing at night on a country lane.

Fallout

14-02-13, 06:51 PM

I find this incident quite a contrast with the guy who was convicted for hitting the girl in dark clothing at night on a country lane.

:stupid: Though I don't think he was convicted. I think that was all just to do with insurance. I hope this guys family is getting a monster payout, though I doubt it.

Owenski

14-02-13, 07:09 PM

The more I think on this the more it boils my ****, I don't think her been a member of the police helped nor hindered the case so I've not seen that as been relevant.

I've broken this down in my mind and let's for a second pretend mr Bart walked away from it. No charges are brought, both vehicles are recovered and insurance details exchanged.
She sticks with the same story and we imagine his to be along the lines of "young woman pulled out across my path".

Correct me if I'm wrong but surely any insurance company would settle 100% in me barts favour finding mrs smug fully liable... FULLY LIABLE!!!

if the insurance company stance seems so simple to determine. Why is she not then fully liable for the none financial aspect?
after all lets not forget mr Bart didn't walk away, that man lost his life. Had it been only the bike that died that day she would have been made to pay for it, so why is she not paying for the human life she also took?

Im serious, someone please explain why its not that serious?
Perhaps if people thought killing someone on the road would lead to them looking at jail time they'd spend more time making sure they weren't about to hit someone.
The thing with a smidsy which begets belief is that you're there to be seen. You're physically there, no one has the power to disappear then reappear the fact of the matter is if you we're not seen then they were not looking plain and simple. Black and white, yes and ****ing no!

Dipper

14-02-13, 07:18 PM

Maybe in motoring cases the jury needs to be made up of non motorists?

21QUEST

14-02-13, 07:52 PM

RIP David Bartholomew.

Re the driver and the decision by the CPS, I fear if it were a member of my family that was killed, there is quite a good chance of the Police and CPS having another case to deal with.

dizzyblonde

14-02-13, 07:54 PM

She didn't see him because she was looking down at her phone jiggling on her lap as she was coming out of a junction.

Anyone sat playing on a games console with their phone on their lap......what's the first thing you do when it moves when.you make a slight movement of leg......?

NTECUK

14-02-13, 08:12 PM

So why is this an accepted punishment
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/General-news/2009/July/jul2009-12-months-jail-for-speeding-biker/

Is authority UK anti motor cycle .
!!!!!!!

Owenski

14-02-13, 08:19 PM

You're giving her more credit that I am.
I don't believe for a second that she wasn't holding the phone against her head.

dizzyblonde

14-02-13, 08:26 PM

A phone in the lap is much more of a distraction imo. It was stated she was on hands free in her Lao was it not?

WeegieBlue

14-02-13, 08:33 PM

I cannot believe this. Phone or not, pulling out in front of oncoming traffic?!?!

£5 for a web domain and we can have justicefordavidbartholomew.co.uk up and running in no time. I wonder how much you could raise for a civil prosecution.

Owenski

14-02-13, 09:11 PM

A phone in the lap is much more of a distraction imo. It was stated she was on hands free in her Lao was it not?

Oh yeah it does say it, in her 5th statement after the previous 4 insisted she wasn't on the phone. lol she's not exactly a picture of honesty.
Shes clearly willing to lie to save her ass, its not a big leap for her to lie saying it was in her lap.

It says how she had to pull across his lane to head west, he'd have been coming from the right. If you hold you a phone to your right ear you obscure a large chunk of right eye. Sure if you turn your head properly its not a hard to get a clear look but the whole having of an accident suggests something stopped her seeing a 1000cc touring motorcycle and rider he's even got side panniers lol he was about as big as a bike can be.

dizzyblonde

14-02-13, 09:17 PM

I don't know about that. I don't drive with my phone stuck to my ear!

Fordward

14-02-13, 09:21 PM

rediculous, whoever dealt with this at the CPS should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves

surely if you are pressing buttons on a phone that is insecurely placed in your lap, and you are having to look down to operate it, then you are not in proper control of your vehicle

Fordward

14-02-13, 09:48 PM

read on another forum that the biker was overtaking a van at the time

Owenski

14-02-13, 11:07 PM

I don't know about that. I don't drive with my phone stuck to my ear!

You've got to be kidding me!
Maybe you've not used one whilst driving but you have held a phone to your ear! surely you're aware it partially obstructs vision from the adjacent eye.

Never tried to meet up with a friend in a crowded place walking around talking on the phone? your head movements exaggerated to compensate for the lack of peripheral vision? You do it, we all do it Even if we're not aware of it. its a Rhetorical question though, I wouldn't believe anyone who said no.

Owenski

14-02-13, 11:08 PM

read on another forum that the biker was overtaking a van at the time

Then why did she pull out in front of a van?

Owenski

14-02-13, 11:10 PM

Never mind, van could have been turning left into where she was pulling out. Van peels left, he pulls out and bike "appears". Still driving with out due care IMO

acting_strange

15-02-13, 07:07 AM

Orwell had it right when he wrote "but some are more equal than others".........
There has been so many innocent people killed by police action over the last few years and none been charged....

Biker Biggles

15-02-13, 08:10 AM

read on another forum that the biker was overtaking a van at the time

If that is correct it puts a very different slant on it.From the CPS point of view-------They cant prove she was doing anything illegal with the phone,so it boils down to pulling out on a bike that was possibly obscured by the vehicle it was overtaking.Very hard to get a guilty result in court on that so they dont persue it.Even if there was a case it would only be something like driving without due care?

Bluepete

15-02-13, 08:24 AM

Orwell had it right when he wrote "but some are more equal than others".........
There has been so many innocent people killed by police action over the last few years and none been charged....

Evidence this claim please.

NTECUK

15-02-13, 08:31 AM

ok she's not a police bod .
that's fact .
still pulling out on a main road with out looking .
this needs to be addressed.

Don't think a jumped up traffic warden . can we trust someone who lies to issue fines .

dizzyblonde

15-02-13, 08:37 AM

You've got to be kidding me!
Maybe you've not used one whilst driving but you have held a phone to your ear! surely you're aware it partially obstructs vision from the adjacent eye.

Never tried to meet up with a friend in a crowded place walking around talking on the phone? your head movements exaggerated to compensate for the lack of peripheral vision? You do it, we all do it Even if we're not aware of it. its a Rhetorical question though, I wouldn't believe anyone who said no.

Of course!
I was just clearly stating, I don't drive with a phone stuck toy ear.

Owenski

15-02-13, 08:41 AM

If that is correct it puts a very different slant on it.From the CPS point of view-------They cant prove she was doing anything illegal with the phone,so it boils down to pulling out on a bike that was possibly obscured by the vehicle it was overtaking.Very hard to get a guilty result in court on that so they dont persue it.Even if there was a case it would only be something like driving without due care?

True, but the synic in me thinks if that were true I cant help but think the article would state he was overtaking. Media like nothing better than blaming a wreckless biker after all.

Fallout

15-02-13, 08:53 AM

Unfortunately we've all fallen foul to that desire for justice and forgotten the fact this is the daily mail. The report is probably about as trustworthy as a toddler with a hand grenade.

NTECUK

15-02-13, 08:58 AM

True it would reduce the blame.
But no one witness said he was speeding .
At 50+ id hope over take on junction manovers would be a ingrained in you.
But do you just pull out from a junction with out looking .
A van can hide lots behind it .
So you have to wait and see.

Fordward

15-02-13, 09:07 AM

it seems the emphasis more and more is on the biker to realise when he is vulnerable and think on behalf of the other driver

doesnt make it right, but it seems to be the way the authorities are leaning in the past few years, your average car driver isn't highly skilled, therefore your average biker (the one whos chosen the dangerous form of transport) should be

do something stupid like overtake before a junction and you seem to become fair game in the eyes of the law

NTECUK

15-02-13, 09:11 AM

overtaking before a junction is delt with in the highway code .
You dont .

dizzyblonde

15-02-13, 09:18 AM

If your average driver isn't highly skilled, what's the point of the hazard awareness part of your test?

I know this statement is a little dumb perhaps, as we all know Mr average just sits clicking a button, but think about it........ Supposed to show a new driver can spot something such as this

So, what about an experienced driver, put it down to laziness, bad driving, complacency, a phone?

There's just no excuse, no matter what the circumstance.

Fallout

15-02-13, 09:47 AM

overtaking before a junction is delt with in the highway code .
You dont .

This is true, though it's not illegal to do so, so you do it at your own risk.

Luckypants

15-02-13, 10:00 AM

WeegieBlue

15-02-13, 10:18 AM

This statement from the CPS is probably the crux of the matter:

'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.'

She was turning right, so would be crossing both lanes to do so. I would expect these two drivers to be on the road she was joining, not the one she was leaving, so this would indiacte there is potentially some fault on the side of the biker?

ChrisCurvyS

15-02-13, 10:28 AM

Ok, cops are here.

You can use a phone on your lap on loudspeaker. You can press a button to answer it, but you can't hold it.

As for why she wasn't charged, I'm at a loss. But, as I always say, without the full file of evidence, I can't pass judgement.

As for "she wasn't charged 'cos she's a copper" no, she isn't a cop. She's a special. Don't ask what I think about them, there's a U rating you know!

As for "she wasn't charged 'cos she's a copper" I can promise you, the management hierarchy love nothing more than the chance to prosecute a cop, the CPS are the same. We are something like 20 times more likely to be imprisoned for an offence than a member of the public.

The Daily Mail have done it again. The job she does in her spare time, on a voluntary basis has nothing to do with this collision. She wasn't in a police car, or even on duty. I'm not supporting her in any way, just taking the sensationist part out of it.

My personal opinion? Charge her with a death by due care and let the jury decide.

A civil prosecution will succeed. The burden of proof is lower.

RIP to the biker. My condolences to his familly.
I'm not a copper but in my experience, what Bluepete says is true - particularly when it comes to lower ranks, so I doubt that's not the reason she wasn't charged.

There was the recent case of a PC who was too rough with a teenage chav girl he'd arrested, who no doubt was giving him loads of abuse and probably spitting etc, jailed for 14 months, along with his sargeant because he didn't stop it. No injuries to her but he held her in a painful restraint position unneccesarily and made remarks about her being on benefits.

I've seen people get not much more than that for manslaughter - and don't forget, prision for a copper is a completely different ball game than for anyone else.

Spank86

15-02-13, 10:33 AM

Evidence this claim please.
Can I use american examples :p

Fordward

15-02-13, 11:38 AM

Where in any news article does it say he was overtaking a van? Let's not lose sight of the fact that this 'driver' pulled out of a junction onto a main road and caused this collision. She basically did not look and killed someone as a result, don't make up excuses for her.

the van driver himself commented on the news article in the Bournemouth Echo and alleged the overtake

he criticised the newspaper and so the comment has now been removed

one of the comments was copy and paste onto forums discussing the case whilst it was still there and is allegedly as follows....

"Unfortunately neither the echo or the mail have reported all the facts, they both probably didnt see each other until the last second as their view of each other could have been restricted by my van. (As has been published neither I or the other witness , who was waiting behind her saw her on the phone, there was nothing in her actions to suggest that she was not paying proper attention). If either I had broken the speed limit in the roadworks area or the vehicles in front of me had not broken the law then there would not have been a bigger enough gap for Ms Carpenter to have emerged from the junction and Mr Bartholomew may still be with us today"

ive not made any excuses for her, ive simply posted additional information that to the best of my knowledge i beleive to be true, from which people may form their own opinions, please dont read between the lines of my posts and find things which arent there

NTECUK

15-02-13, 11:38 AM

Never mind, van could have been turning left into where she was pulling out. Van peels left, he pulls out and bike "appears". Still driving with out due care IMO

Remember in this accident the bike was on the left as she emerged from the junction.

Luckypants

15-02-13, 11:56 AM

the van driver himself commented on the news article in the Bournemouth Echo and alleged the overtake

he criticised the newspaper and so the comment has now been removed

one of the comments was copy and paste onto forums discussing the case whilst it was still there and is allegedly as follows....

"Unfortunately neither the echo or the mail have reported all the facts, they both probably didnt see each other until the last second as their view of each other could have been restricted by my van. (As has been published neither I or the other witness , who was waiting behind her saw her on the phone, there was nothing in her actions to suggest that she was not paying proper attention). If either I had broken the speed limit in the roadworks area or the vehicles in front of me had not broken the law then there would not have been a bigger enough gap for Ms Carpenter to have emerged from the junction and Mr Bartholomew may still be with us today"

ive not made any excuses for her, ive simply posted additional information that to the best of my knowledge i beleive to be true, from which people may form their own opinions, please dont read between the lines of my posts and find things which arent there

Thank you for clearing that up. The van driver does not say the bike was overtaking him though.

From the description and photos of the aftermath, it appears the the car driver was emerging from a junction on the right as the biker looked down the road. The van would have been in the right turn lane to enter the road the car driver was exiting. It would be perfectly normal, legal and correct for the bike to pass down the left side of the van in his correct lane. The car driver has assumed the road to be clear behind the van and then pulled out into the path of the bike. At the very least this is driving without due care but still IMO causing death by careless driving.

Now obviously the above is supposition and I am not in possession of all the facts, but if I am close then there should be a prosecution. The comments of the judge at the inquest back this up I think. Quote from original article "However, coroner Mr Sheriff Payne described her account of the incoming call as ‘total rubbish’ and said: ‘She came up with misleading accounts of what happened.’"

Biker Biggles

15-02-13, 12:01 PM

Thank you for clearing that up. The van driver does not say the bike was overtaking him though.

From the description and photos of the aftermath, it appears the the car driver was emerging from a junction on the right as the biker looked down the road. The van would have been in the right turn lane to enter the road the car driver was exiting. It would be perfectly normal, legal and correct for the bike to pass down the left side of the van in his correct lane. The car driver has assumed the road to be clear behind the van and then pulled out into the path of the bike. At the very least this is driving without due care but still IMO causing death by careless driving.

Now obviously the above is supposition and I am not in possession of all the facts, but if I am close then there should be a prosecution. The comments of the judge at the inquest back this up I think. Quote from original article "However, coroner Mr Sheriff Payne described her account of the incoming call as ‘total rubbish’ and said: ‘She came up with misleading accounts of what happened.’"

Exactly.But it takes us back to my point about the CPS.They take a view on the chances of getting a conviction and unless those chances are quite high they drop it.
Different story in the County Court for damages though.

NTECUK

15-02-13, 12:32 PM

The thing about damages its insurance that foots the bill .
So she will just smile whilst you and me pay higher premiums.

She din't look. Then to compound it told a pack of lies,changing the story more than once.
What she did was a careless at the minimum maneuver ..

Owenski

15-02-13, 12:38 PM

Remember in this accident the bike was on the left as she emerged from the junction.

You sure? From the article:
"Mr Bartholomew, 54, of Bere Regis, Dorset, was riding his Honda CBF1000 east along the A31 at 7.20am on March 20 last year when Miss Carpenter – who was off-duty – pulled out of a side road in Ferndown to go west in her Peugeot 206"

He's riding east, she's pulling out to head west. If the intended directions were opposing unless he came from her right then their paths would have never crossed.

Yeah I've just checked on google earth, she was pulling out of Uddens Drive to turn right onto the A31, he will have been in the lane she crossed. In the pic the bike has spun to land facing that direction, its not facing the direction it was before the impact, as is evident by the pic as the damage is on the drivers side of her car.

Fordward

15-02-13, 12:45 PM

The van driver does not say the bike was overtaking him though

not in that comment, but allegedly he did in other comments on the Bournemouth and Echo website that have now been removed

NTECUK

15-02-13, 01:07 PM

You sure? From the article:
"Mr Bartholomew, 54, of Bere Regis, Dorset, was riding his Honda CBF1000 east along the A31 at 7.20am on March 20 last year when Miss Carpenter – who was off-duty – pulled out of a side road in Ferndown to go west in her Peugeot 206"

He's riding east, she's pulling out to head west. If the intended directions were opposing unless he came from her right then their paths would have never crossed.

Yeah I've just checked on google earth, she was pulling out of Uddens Drive to turn right onto the A31, he will have been in the lane she crossed. In the pic the bike has spun to land facing that direction, its not facing the direction it was before the impact, as is evident by the pic as the damage is on the drivers side of her car.

No can't be sure . I just read it in a different paper .
but what your saying looking at the roads is likely more accurate and is even more unforgiveable.

EssexDave

15-02-13, 07:14 PM

I'm not reading the whole thread, nor do I know the facts of the case or the specific law surrounding this.

My understanding however, is that handsfree is okay. There is nothing to say that she didn't initiate the call whilst parked (or answered whilst at lights for example, which I believe is strictly against the law, but that may not have had a direct influence on the accident.

A tragedy for sure, but we don't lock people up for accidents and evidence must be submitted.

(p.s It's a daily mail article..........)

NTECUK

15-02-13, 07:51 PM

But we do have a charge of "Causing Death by Careless Driving".
This is what the minimum should take place.
Make an example of them So others might take notice when the April bikers emerge.

EssexDave

15-02-13, 09:18 PM

Ntecuk - do you know what happened? Were you there?
Arbitrary prison for people who may have committed a crime is something I would very much dislike to see coming into our country and is something normally associated more with dictatorships.

Yes, we have innocent people in our jails sent there due to dodgy prosecutions or perhaps victims of a system that doesn't always work, BUT, the over-ruling principle is that no innocent person should be sent to jail - hence the fact the proof is supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt.

For whatever reason, the CPS does not think it has the evidence to pursue a charge. That may be because the biker was doing something naughty, it may be because the witnesses are weak. Regardless, we don't put people in jail just because something has happened.

I appreciate what you're saying, I really do, but I still don't believe she deserves a jail sentence on the basis of a sensationalist article written by the daily mail.

As has already be raised in the thread, the fact that she is a 'special' has absolutely nothing to do with what has happened and yet is mentioned as the focus of the article with the aim of making the public think the police can get away with murder.

But anyway, to illustrate my earlier point, let me give a hypothetical scenario.

You are driving along in your car, your phone rings, and is set to automatically pick up/you mean to cancel call to stop the ringing but you answer it. You are talking to someone in the passenger seat. 30 seconds/1 minute later whatever time you like, you hit a cyclist killing them. You did not speak to anyone on the phone, yet were still having a conversation. The phone did not distract you at the time of the incident. (e.g. playing with it).

The cyclist was going along and despite looking, the cyclist was drafting behind a lorry - not too close, but close enough you didn't see. You pulled out on him, but you were driving with 'reasonable' car and 'reasonable' skill. This, to me would be a tragic accident, but not necessarily careless. Accidents do happen, and it is right that we have insurance to cover the costs of such things, but how right is it to punish someone by taking away their liberty for an accident.

Now I am not suggesting there is no carelessness at all, the simple point is - we do not know all the facts and these sorts of things can happen to the best of us.

NTECUK

15-02-13, 10:12 PM

Dave. The mobile phone avenue is not going to be a parth of a sucsesfull prosicution.
The driver did not pay attention pulled out and took alife.
If we dont do anything then why is any driver going to take second look.
The president will be set that you cant see motorcyclest so its fine to pull out on them.

Sid Squid

16-02-13, 03:04 PM

The factor that worries me is that it is claimed that the CPS did not have enough evidence to make a charge causing death by careless or dangerous driving.

How much evidence do they need? Even if one discounts the possibility of dangerous driving, it is entirely clear that her negligence led to the collision and thus careless driving is therefore quite plain, even if her view was obstructed by a van, (I appreciate it is far from clear that's what happened, but allow for a moment that it is), the responsibility to ensure non conflict with other traffic when emerging from minor to major road is still present, this lack of observation therefore equals carelessness.

Or am I missing something? It certainly seems that similar and weaker cases have led to prosecutions before now.

punyXpress

16-02-13, 10:19 PM

What's the betting " girlfriend Rosemary Bonny " is the daughter of:
A) Senior CPS person
B) Chief Constable
C) Police Commisioner
For God's sake, she killed somebody - one of us!

EssexDave

16-02-13, 10:33 PM

To be completely frank about most of the comments above, and as disgusting as this notion is for any potential crime; the chances are she is not being prosecuted due to funding issues, more pressing cases and the fact they may believe a jury would side with her.

NTECUK

16-02-13, 11:47 PM

So Dave what your getting at is it's justice by checkbook size nowadays?
And do I understand you feel no crime has been committed when a pulling out of a minor to a major road at a junction with out taking due care to check other road users are exercising there privilege to traverse along it.
Can I use this president to simply pull out in front or drive over cyclist who are even harder to see ?

EssexDave

17-02-13, 06:11 AM

I'm not suggesting no crime has been committed by any means, but neither am I suggesting there has been a crime; That would be for a jury to decide in court, presented with all the facts.

If you don't believe that prosecutions are done based on some amount of financial interest from the CPS then you're being very naive. Every department within government has targets and a budget. Sometimes, for certain big cases, they may be given extra if they need to ensure they pursue a prosecution.

It is phenomenally expensive to go to trial, the prisons are, on the whole full.

The justice system is a funny and interesting thing. Do not assume because something is wrong/immoral that somebody will go down for it.

Dipper

17-02-13, 07:06 AM

I understand where Dave is coming from here, it is difficult to get a jury of Joe public to convict because they don't travel on two wheels and are often surprised by bikes because if poor obs, so the CPS doesn't bother to put the case forward.

Would we prefer the French system where the least vulnerable road user is presumed to be at fault if there is no evidence to the contrary?

Teejayexc

17-02-13, 07:20 AM

I understand where Dave is coming from here, it is difficult to get a jury of Joe public to convict because they don't travel on two wheels and are often surprised by bikes because if poor obs, so the CPS doesn't bother to put the case forward.

That's the whole point though surely?

A jury didn't have a chance to come to a decision, one way or the other, because the cps decided in it's infinite wisdom there was insufficient evidence to proceed.

We have a try by your peers system in this *fair* country, why not use it?

Dipper

17-02-13, 08:01 AM

Probably because of decisions made in similar cases previously, jurys don't seem to have the stomach to convict where they feel it could have been them in that situation. From the CPS point of view they can only proceed if they feel they have greater that 50% chance of conviction, there hands are tied.
......and of course we don't know the full facts.

BoltonSte

17-02-13, 08:28 AM

For (yet) another view, how can you convict for a SMIDSY when unfortunatly they happen due to our own evolution (yes seriously)

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=188568&highlight=interesting+article

iirc most people who read this were saying it explians a lot (it did for me)...a death is unfortunate, but the cause is the same as any SMIDSY, you coldn't convict for Driving without Due Care if they'd just had a prang could you?

We are very quick (too quick) to judge in these circumstances, and will always side with the common interest (bikers, drivers, cyclists)