One for the org trafpol
 

As above - is it feasible that someone who hit and sadly killed pedestrian where:
1 - The pedestrian had stepped out into the road
2 - The driver was slightly below the 30mph limit at approx 25mph
3 - There is no suggestion the driver was using a phone or doing anything else untoward
- would be charged and then convicted of death by dangerous driving?
I would have thought it would be death by careless at the most, and only if there was some suggestion the driver had been very negligent in their duty, ie had a long time to see the pedestrian and stop but didn't.

Re: One for the org trafpol
 

If the driver was over the drink drive limit, then yes, he would be charged, otherwise, no. This was used as an example on an insurance course I went on.

Re: One for the org trafpol
 

That's a bit like asking if you shot a burglar in your house in the middle of the night should you be charged with murder?

There are many ways that driving can be dangerous without involving excess or inappropriate speed. You need to look objectively at all of the circumstances, not just a few of them. For example if the scenario you gave involved a small child running along the pavement on their own and there was an ice cream van parked on the opposite side of the road how many people on here would consider it dangerous to carry on past without making some allowance for the possibility that the child might run out?

Dangerous driving is described thus - "if the driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous".

So it's not a black and white answer.

Re: One for the org trafpol
 

Personally if all the conditions are met from the OP and it was me I wouldn't expect to be charged with anything.

Now just to throw another variable into the mix:
What if that person had intentionally stepped out into traffic with intent to commit suicide?
In those circumstances I wouldn't expect to get charged with anything.

But if the police were willing to charge you will anything under the OP circumstances then why would the intention of the pedestrian have an effect on whether you would be charged with anything or not?

Re: One for the org trafpol
 

I think you have missed my point, perhaps because I haven't made it very well.

Put very simply you cannot make a call on this based on the three pieces of information supplied by the OP. We can both go throwing "what ifs" into the equation but each and every scenario has to be judged on it's merits and anybody who feels the need to try and dumb everything down to a few basic pieces of untested information should go and work for the Daily Mail.

Re: One for the org trafpol
 

Death by Dangerous driving is always heard in front of a court.
So being charged is not the end of the world.

Re: One for the org trafpol
 

Sorry RH I was being a bit sparing on the details for the sake of discretion - I've got a work connection to the case.
However, I did get across the essence of what was initially explained to me - the driver had done nothing overtly "wrong" as far as she was concerned and pedestrian was at fault.
But as I suspected, turns out there's more to it - the pedestrian was in the road for a significant length of time before being hit, driver made no attempt to brake and witness said she appeared to be looking at something in her car. So that explains the driving meeting the "falling far below" criteria which I'm aware of.
Thanks for the responses and sorry again for the evasiveness.

Re: One for the org trafpol
 

Not evasive at all.

I was reading down the thread and was about to ask if the driver could have had seen the pedestrian or did s/he walk out from behind, say, a car/van.

Methinks the traffic cop has hit the nail on the head; it's never as simple as the scenario in the original post.

Re: One for the org trafpol
 

Yeah that's why I was so suspicious of the picture that was originally painted by the driver. She was very convincing but then I think she honestly doesn't see what she did wrong.

It did briefly unshake my faith in the reasonableness of the British justice system, I have to say. Bit like when someone who stumbled as across a horrific fatal bike crash where a tractor had pulled out on a group of bikes told me the driver hadn't been charged because "he was 15 and fled the scene". I looked up the news reports and it turned out the riders were doing about 90 and the tractor had started his turn before they came into view.

Re: One for the org trafpol
 

There was a case in Winnersh near where I live where an elderly lady was hit and killed by a car travelling below the 40mph limit.

The crossing was confrimed as faulty with the red man stuck on red, the lady stepped out in front of a car waiting to filter left into a supermarket and was hit by a car travelling straight at well below the 40mph speed limit.

According to the local news report police and the coroner recorded it as an accident as the drivers and pedestrian view was obscured by the stationary vehicle and neither saw one and other and no further action was taken against the driver.