CPS seem to have chickened out without giving the fella's family their chance to see it properly tested in court. Maybe a civil prosecution would get something, but just doesn't seem the same. RIP Bournemouth biker.
It's an absolutely diabolical decision.No doubt there will be the usual defenders pointing out "you weren't there/you don't know all the facts " etc,but the facts speak for themselves."One rule for some",springs immediately to mind....
At least the police crash investgator said her using the phone was the likely cause of her not seeing him. It's down to the CPS to prosecute, it's not a police decision. Someone once told me it's not the end result of what happened that has a bearing on a prosecution, but the offence itself. Seems daft but there you go!
Yeah I had that said to me ..it's not illegal you don't know the facts!!! Well no but I did watch that emergency bikers and one of the cops did a girl for reaching down to do something briefly to her phone... She was not texting.
Very sad. A couple of summers ago myself and three pals were all going over the woodhead pass on four KR1S's. I was at the front and luckily noticed a car coming at us crossing the central lines. I swerved to my extreme left as, luckily, my mates also did behind me. As the car passed at about 60mph I glanced over and it was a mid twenties female texting at the wheel! She nearly wiped us all out in one go. Sadly we did not get the VRM. Over the years I have noticed a severe drop in driving standards, people do not even bother to indicate anymore, how difficult is it to flick the stalk! Us Motorcyclist really need to be on the ball.
I've so noticed now people not indicating. It's lazyness . I passed about 50 cars the other morning and with noticing more and more every morning the lack of indicating I counted out of about 50 indicating 10 now did not. I followed one car and not once did he indicate!! I was really angry and I'm not a mind reader nor our others! At a junction I wound down my window and shouted and gestured that did he know his indicators where broken ( not like me at all but I was livid). not once did he use them!
The Highway Code Shamelessly ripped off from where I had originally posted it: A guide to staying safe on the highway! Time for a safety tips reminder! Remember always: MSM Maneouvre - that gap you see there, contrary to popular opinion, is not the driver behind giving the driver in front a safety buffer, to allow for emergency braking and such. That is sheer nonsense. That space (real or imagined) is there specifically for you. Seize what is rightfully yours. Signal - remember, you must always use your signal to show other users what maneouvre you have just performed. If you don't signal, how will they know that you have just pulled in front of them? Please be considerate. Mirror - it is essential that you use your mirror after a successful (or indeed, unsuccessful) maneouvre, to check that the driver behind you has fully appreciated what you have just achieved. Don't forget to give a wave, if the driver behind is still on the carriageway and hasn't veered off on some impromptu sight-seeing tour. You may find upon checking your mirror that the driver behind is sitting in his vehicle, but is also in your vehicle as well. This is not unusual and there is no reason to be alarmed. Sometimes the driver behind you may be seen to be yelling and gesticulating wildly - this too is normal and entirely to be expected. He is undoubtedly congratulating you on a truly awesome piece of motoring skill. Pat yourself on the back and give another cheery wave in acknowledgement. The Golden Rule - maneouvre swiftly and decisively, to ensure that other road users have no opportunity to react foolishly and dangerously to your actions. The ability to surprise and delight other road users is a valuable and respected strategy for safe driving. Happy motoring everyone!
It's become a very bad habit here to run red lights I see it all the time Also txting talking on phone is as regular as clockwork as is lack of signals Another is drivers not in the right lane Especially on roundabouts who cut straight across without a thought. One frightening coincidence is this is all from older drivers in my experience and around half female In my opinion a phone should be locked in the glove box.
Seems clear offence. Wonder what CPS reason for not prosecuting is, given they have spent millions and years chasing Huhne for a simple pass the ticket offence, not like someone died.
Typical one rule and all that. CPS should have to give explanation as to why they have not prosecuted. Then the Woman should be hanged drawn and quarterd. I do like old time punishments. Regards Steve
The investigator's opinion would be very weak evidence, and not likely to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecutor would have known. It is possible for a slightly careless act to have catastrophic consequences; or for a grossly negligent act to have slight or no consequences. Lawyers have debated for centuries whether offenders should be prosecuted for the act (regardless of its effects) or for the consequences (regardless of the act). What we actually have in English law is a rather muddled mixture of the two. E.g. The offence of causing death by careless driving [not dangerous driving] was only recently introduced.
....and we also send people to prison for exceeding the speed limit when none has had even a hint of an accident...
There are many reasons why prosecutors decide not to prosecute cases. For example, some evidence may be inadmissable or challengeable in court e.g. because the investigator has messed it up and not followed PACE (Police & Criminal Evidence Act) properly. Or a crucial prosecution witness may be flaky or unconvincing. Or the prosecutors may be overspent - the CPS does not have a bottomless pot of money to spend, any more than the rest of the public service. Prosecutors often have to make tough, unpalatable decisions between the lesser of the evils. If they had to provide an explanation in each case, that process would consume a vast amount of their resources and they would therefore bring a lot less prosecutions. Is that really what you want?
you all probably know what i think about this so i'll save my writers crap for another thread...CPS scumbags.
CPS prosecuters always give a full explanation for there decisions to prosecute or not prosecute on a document given to the police. whether that document is available to the Public under the freedom of Information act I am not sure. Make a request and see where it gets you
For me, talking on the phone while driving is not that great an issue - even though this particular incident would seem to suggest other wise - but texting while driving should result in an immediate ban. This must be just about the most dangerous thing you can do while driving.
No it is not. See FOI Act section 30 etc : 30. Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities - 1). Information held by a public authority is exempt information if it has at any time been held by the authority for the purposes of - (a) any investigation which the public authority has a duty to conduct with a view to it being ascertained - (i) whether a person should be charged with an offence, or (ii) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it, (b) any investigation which is conducted by the authority and in the circumstances may lead to a decision by the authority to institute criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct, or (c) any criminal proceedings which the authority has power to conduct.
