Three dead, one seriously injured and a lorry parked on the 15th fairway of a golf course.
Routinely nowadays, the surviving driver - the lorry driver in this case - is arrested and questioned on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
Nothing apparent yet to say how the collision happened.
www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/9670674.Baby_among_three_dead_in_County_Durham_crash/
|
From the report "After colliding with the car, the lorry careered off the road, ploughed through two hedges and ended up 250 yards away on the 15th fairway of the nearby Sharpley Springs Golf Club. "
He must have been going at a fair lick to do that.
In motoring, the most deadly cocktail of human stupidity is the mix of
(a) A love affair with speed, and
(b) The arrogant over-estimation of one's own driving skills.
|
>> In motoring, the most deadly cocktail of human stupidity is the mix of
>> (a) A love affair with speed, and
>> (b) The arrogant over-estimation of one's own driving skills.
>>
Bit early in the proceedings to be hinting at that. A fully laden lorry can have quite some momentum at most speeds....and you could cycle through some hedges.
|
A very harsh judgement Londoner.
One thing for sure, the lorry will have a permanent record of the speed and the way it was/had been driven at the time of the accident.
We will never know that amount of information about any car involved in an accident.
It may well turn out the lorry driver was guilty, it may not, however I know just how he must be feeling today.
Pat
|
>> Routinely nowadays, the surviving driver - the lorry driver in this case - is arrested
>> and questioned on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.
You are right about the routine element nowadays. One day that will be challenged in court when someone sues.
You should only exercise a power of arrest if you have reasonable suspicion that someone has committed an offence...and that the arrest is necessary, etc, etc.
If a fully compliant and helpful motorist is present and there's nothing immediately suspicious about their driving or other offences (and therefore no suspicion they've committed an offence)....then IMO the arrest could well be an abuse of authority.
|
All I said was that the lorry driver was going at a fair lick - I didn't say that he caused the accident. Jeez - now I know how a politician feels.
It's entirely possible/probable that the driver of the car took the corner too wide and swerved onto the lorry's side of the road.
As to the substantive points, does anyone feel that we are not too fond of speed in this country? Or that we (in general) over-estimate their driving ability? It's just like parents view of their children. They always tell you that their kids are above average. Where are all the below average kids? :-)
|
>> As to the substantive points, does anyone feel that we are not too fond of
>> speed in this country? Or that we (in general) over-estimate their driving ability?
I think with regards speed we are breeding a nation of terminal mimsers.
People who don't know how to overtake, because 'it is dangerous'...people who drive at 40mph everywhere because they don't know what the limit is and speed cameras worry them (those great big metal things that anyone partially aware cannot possibly miss).
Then there's the 'economy at all costs' people...you know the ones that won't accelerate properly down a dual carriageway/motorway access road, because a miniscule amount of extra fuel will be used.... or the ones on the outside lane of a m/way that won't accelerate a bit more to be courteous.
Then there's the vast swathes of double white lines everywhere because of 'gone mad' health and safety.
So 'no' I do not think there's a speed problem...far from it....there's a problem with people dawdling everywhere.
|
>> So 'no' I do not think there's a speed problem...far from it....there's a problem with people dawdling everywhere.
You obviously inhabit a different world to me then, Westpig. Probably a safer one.
In the words of the song:
"Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of London
I'll show you something to make you change your mind "
|
Londoner what on earth are you talking about?
London's roads are lethal because they have been restricted, damaged and covered in hazards invented to 'calm the traffic'. As for the drivers, hardly any go fast. Most go too slowly. The standard of driving is poor because people are taught to drive badly and encouraged to drive badly by the authorities and by naive hysterics who think speed is a problem.
Every now and then one sees someone driving recklessly or too fast. But it's so rare that one almost feels like applauding. The danger isn't speed, it's stupidity and incompetence.
|
Speed is the way we used to all learn how to handle a vehicle and what it's limitations are.
We gradually pushed ourselves (and the vehicle) and learned what we could both do but now there isn't the opportunity to do this.
Even a deserted road at 2am can be covered by cameras. The anti speed lobbyists and the obsession that speed kills are gradually breeding a whole new generation of drivers who are not progressing any further than passing the test (car, lorry or bike).
As a result, driving is now more of a chore than a pleasure and a skill.
Pat
|
All this is true, and mimsing (basically 7-day Sunday Drivers) is a scourge on the carriageways, but it's also true that there are less deaths on our roads now than at any time since the 1920s.
How much mandatory seatbelts and improved crashworthiness has to do with this is debatable.
|
Likewise more airbags, crumple zones and user friendly street furniture.
Pat
|
|
Having worked in the Scottish Ambulance Service during the transition from no abligation to wear seatbelts and a legal requirement to wear one I can personally vouch for the huge difference wearing them made to the KISS figures. Before the event we regulary attend fatal or shortly to prove fatal crashes which happenned on all sorts of roads/speed limit situations - after, they were cut drastically.
|
>> Londoner what on earth are you talking about?
Armel, what are YOU talking about?
Try driving on the parts of the A40, A10 and A406 that lie inside the M25.
>> The danger isn't speed, it's stupidity and incompetence.
I agree. The danger is INAPPROPRIATE use of speed, which is something that the policeman on the ground can judge best, not a camera.
>> Every now and then one sees someone driving recklessly or too fast. But it's so rare that one almost feels like applauding.
Rare? Not in my neck of the woods - I see it all the time! I'm talking about (for example) impatient undertaking of cars which are already going too fast. I'm talking about a car full of laughing young bloods who think it hilarious when the car they are in cuts you up badly. A macho culture of showing that you are just as daring as your mates.
>> The standard of driving is poor because people are taught to drive badly
I don't believe that driving instructors are teaching people to put the car in gear and START OFF at a red light, ignore pedestrian crossings and that the only way to start of from rest is as if you are on the grid of a formula one race.
Last edited by: Londoner on Fri 27 Apr 12 at 09:00
|
or drivers that are so blinkered in their own world that they stay in the left hand lane on a round a bout turning right and cut up several people at once.
or the old fart that drives at 40mph down a slip road onto a motorway and just pulls out onto the first lane causing massive trouble behind, yet still stays at 40mph.
so yes speed can be an issue TOO SLOW can be just as dangerous as too fast.
|
>> A40, A10 and A406 that lie inside the M25.
I have, often. I've never noticed a general tendency to drive inappropriately fast. It's true that when the heavyweight commuters are on their way in or out there are sometimes a few eager beavers, but they don't usually bother me. Why should they?
I'm sorry of course that you have this experience of being cut up by little yobbos. All I can say is that it's extremely rare in my case, I usually see them coming and then they are gone.
Driving instructors teach people to mimse for their own safety. Quite a few drivers never progress beyond mimsing and systematic clutch abuse. They think they can drive and that's it.
|
>> Driving instructors teach people to mimse for their own safety.>>
Driving instructors teach people to a minimum standard to pass the driving test. I was taught how to pass the test in the UK after driving abroad for a couple of years.
|
>> You obviously inhabit a different world to me then, Westpig. Probably a safer one.
>>
>> In the words of the song:
>> "Let me take you by the hand and lead you through the streets of London
>> I'll show you something to make you change your mind "
Go on then. Enlighten me...but bear in mind i've just spent 30 years policing it.
|
|
I happened to be in her home village this morning, it was the funeral today - most sad.
|
Hi Westpig, I'm more than willing to have a friendly discussion about this (with the emphasis on "friendly" from my part certainly).
Rather than bore the pants of everyone else on the forum, like I usually do, would it be OK to take it offline via exchanges of emails (perhaps best through the mods?)
|
Surely that is detrimental to the purpose of a forum?
Pat
|
>>Surely that is detrimental to the purpose of a forum?<<
+1
|
Sorry Pat, I wasn't trying to upset anyone - quite the opposite.
I've started to feel that my, rather lone stance, on this topic was boring the rest of the forum, hence my offer to discuss it off the record.
I'd be happy to carry on, but I get the impression that others think that my views are ...err. .."unorthodox".
|
>> I'd be happy to carry on, but I get the impression that others think that
>> my views are ...err. .."unorthodox".
>>
Shouldn't stop you airing them, and if everybody disagrees with you, it doesn't always mean they are right :-)
|
>> I get the impression that others think that my views are ...err. .."unorthodox".
They seem very orthodox to me Londoner. But you shouldn't feel reluctant to express them.
|
I wasn't chiding you Londoner:)
Car4play is one of the few places where a lone opinion can be heard and debated without any real malice (usually!) and it so much more interesting for those of us who just want to read another side of what we solidly think is 'right'.
Pat
|
Westpig as definitive as ever!
The H&S people go out of their way to make overtaking dangerous.
Main road in to town is a die straight 3/4 mile. Great for making that last sprint past the Sainsbury lorry that will be chugging up the next hill. But south southbound, it runs downhill.
The council used to cut the trees on the route to make overtaking easier. Now they let the trees grow a natural bridge over the road because they were not allowed to put solid white lines down the middle. So now you cannot see far ahead enough to overtake.
|
Sadly shortage of visibility has never entirely cured an excess of enthusiasm for being ahead of another vehicle.
Without knowing far more, theres no way of telling who did what before the accident.
The routine of arresting the lorry driver every time theres a fatal accident simply encourages the Daily Wail reading mimsers to believe that all big diesels are driven by homicidal maniacs.
This isn't helpful.
|
|
This is a problem generated by the need to be doing something - it's not just truck drivers that get nicked in these circumstances - I can see the benefit in the Police getting a "first account" interview as soon as possible after an accident, but is an arrest really necessary. Depriving a person of their liberty used to be a last resort in the old days, these days seems to be a routine tactic - Fatal RTCs can take months to investigate thoroughly, one has to ask if it's a proportionate response to keep a driver on bail for many months - No-one seems to challenge this stuff any more....
|
How about the PDA formally writing to ACPO to ask if there is an automatic arrest in all fatality cases and is that the expected procedure.
It virtually is, but shouldn't be.
I'd be interested in any reply.
|
|
And me, as an ex-professional it always disturbed me...
|
I'd be happy to do that WP and will do it at my best working time! 4am tomorrow morning.
I'll post a copy of the letter on here and a copy of the reply when I get one.
Have you any idea where to look for the best address to send it to?
Email me if you prefer to.
Pat
Last edited by: pda on Sun 29 Apr 12 at 13:42
|
www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/1893.html
Looks like this one - write a letter direct to her at her home force, by-pass the ACPO red tape. An e-mail would probably be best (!)
|
I think maybe a letter on headed notepaper may be more appropriate for this one initially RP.
Pat
|
|
I see your point. It may be interesting to raise a point - Richard Brunstrom authored the Fatal Accident Investigation Manual - wonder if he included this area of interest.
Last edited by: R.P. on Sun 29 Apr 12 at 13:55
|
...I'll post a copy of the letter on here and a copy of the reply when I get one...
You won't have to, someone will do it for you. :)
To be serious, while I agree arrests appear routine, in the posted case I don't know if Durham Police have any grounds to suspect the offence has been committed.
They may have a witness or two whose statements are not yet in the public domain.
|
To be honest Iffy, that is the reason I haven't posted the letter on here.
When I thought about it, I realised whilst I post on here and (apparently) can expect my posts to be sent to other people in my name, it certainly wouldn't be fair to risk someone doing that to a letter from a charity.
How sad is that?
I will however, post the reply.
Pat
|
ACPO are taking their time replying.
A formal letter went in the postbox on Monday 30th April.
Pat
|
I was thinking about this earlier in the light of the below.
www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-wales-news/2012/05/11/eight-schoolchildren-hurt-in-a55-old-colwyn-coach-crash-video-55578-30944035/
I honestly can't see what's to be gained by depriving someone of their liberty in circumstances like this. It used to be that arrest was a last resort.
|
To put the reply into context, here is the letter sent to ACPO and the questions asked.
>> Dear Sir
It is with dismay that the Professional Drivers Foundation sees another lorry driver arrested following a fatal accident.
While we would not presume to know any more than the bare facts of the incident in Durham as reported through the media, it does seem that every time an HGV is part of a fatal collision, the immediate action is to arrest the driver.
Given that any driver involved in a serious accident is undoubtedly going to be traumatised and possibly injured as a result, it seems odd to have a policy of automatic arrest under such circumstances.
If it is not a defined policy as such, has it simply become expected procedure after an accident where people are killed, and if so why?
The Professional Drivers Foundation is concerned not only with the effects such actions may be having on lorry drivers caught up in such tragic events, but also the media portrayal of our profession as a result.
The news coverage will always state, when covering such an accident that the driver of the HGV has been arrested. Their subsequent release however, is never given such attention and may even be missed altogether, leading to a public perception that lorry drivers are a great risk to other road users, and automatically responsible every time there is an accident involving a heavy goods vehicle.
I would appreciate ACPO’s clarification on this matter.
Regards
<<
Pat
|
Here we are WP, a reply today but not very informative IMHO.
>>Dear Pat Nicholson,
ARREST OF LORRY DRIVERS
Thank you for your letter of 30 April addressed to sir Hugh Orde at ACPO, Sir Hugh has asked me to respond on his behalf.
I will start by stating very clearly that there is no policy of arresting lorry drivers following fatal collisions.
In every case where a fatal collision has occurred the police have a duty to thoroughly investigate the circumstances of the collisions and present all of the available evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service and HM coroner.
This will often involve the arrest of one or more of the drivers involved in the collision for the purpose of securing evidence through interview.
The decision-making process in terms of who is arrested is recorded and the power to arrest is governed by legislation, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the type of vehicle being driven.
I trust this answers the concerns you have raised.
Yours sincerely
Paul taylor
Business Manager
ACPO Roads Policing Portfolio<<
Pat
|
Thanks RP, I thought so too but it will be interesting to see WP's take on it.
The relevent legistlation is not even quoted.
Pat
|
I agree it's a crap answer.
I used to deal with complaints and such like..... and am well versed in giving a bland 'go away' type response....which is exactly what this is.
What needs answering from ACPO is:
- Is there currently or has there been to date, some 'mission creep' in the actions of those investigating serious collisions?
- Has it now become the 'norm' to arrest drivers involved in serious/fatal collisions irrespective of whether there is any suspicion or real suspicion that they may have committed an offence?
- Why does it seem commonplace to arrest an HGV driver, when many, if not all will be either reputable themselves and/or employed by a reputable company and will be/would be willing to assist any enquiry in any way they could?
- Are there not systems in place for investigations to take place without having to arrest someone and would not the willingness to co-operate by someone not help dictate the need to arrest/not arrest?
- Are you comfortable with the level of medium/senior management supervision of complicated traffic enquiries...or is the truth nearer the fact that experienced traffic officers of Constable/Sergeant rank are often left to their own devices...and to potentially perpetuate 'mission creep'?
I don't have a 'downer' on traffic officers, far from it, I think they do a difficult job in difficult circumstances, with increasingly less resources....however...in the same fashion as the debate about closing roads for too long, I think this is an area of policing that gets ignored by most in the management of police, for the specialists to get on with it...and sometimes it's difficult to see the woods from the trees, when you're wrapped up in it.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 16 May 12 at 19:49
|
>> I agree it's a crap answer.
>>
>> I used to deal with complaints and such like..... and am well versed in giving
>> a bland 'go away' type response....which is exactly what this is.
Interesting comment WP. I've also been on same position in an organisation where complaints are seen as a 'problem' to be 'dealt with'.
I've also been to a couple of seminars recently where we've been given an alternative perspective. The theory propounded is that complaints are gems; customer feedback you'd pay thousands to get through a consultant. They should be treated as such rather then as negatives to be discouraged.
|
The theory propounded is that complaints are gems; customer feedback you'd pay thousands to
>> get through a consultant. They should be treated as such rather then as negatives to
>> be discouraged.
>>
Not in policing. Not when your 'customers' think that the more mud they sling the more they'll get off.
Not when there's leaflets everywhere telling people how to complain so that the truly dysfunctional in life can blame yet another person for their own failings.
There are of course genuine people who complain...and they need to be taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly and properly (more often than not, someone giving them the time of day, explaining what went wrong and why is all it takes, they're fed up with no one taking ownership of anything and not being able to get through to anyone)....and once in a blue moon, there's something really bad that needs a load of work doing on and rightly so......trouble is though, the ratio of genuine to ridiculous is incredibly low, very low single number percentage. The balance is hopelessly skewed, some people need to be told to go away.
If the public knew how much time was wasted on utter crap, yet their crimes are ignored due to a lack of resources, there'd be an outcry.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 16 May 12 at 21:55
|
The lorry driver thing is a red herring, the old bill are not biased to arrest to lorry driver over anyone else, but if it is in the least bit serious they will find SOMEONE to arrest on the spot.
Lorry driver has nothing to do with it.
|
>> if it is in the least bit serious they will find SOMEONE to arrest on the spot.
Just as a matter of interest Zero, did they arrest anyone when you had your big smash?
I agree they wouldn't have it in for truckers. They are quite sympathetic with all professional drivers, even louche ones, who get clocked over the limit and so on.
|
>> Just as a matter of interest Zero, did they arrest anyone when you had your
>> big smash?
No. I was cautioned two weeks later by my local plod, and had to give a statement under caution. Leicestershire police cocked up pretty badly as it happens. I was not breathalysed at the scene (chest injury suspected / collapsed lung so not surprised) but at A&E the doctor took a blood sample saying "just checking for diabetes" I can guess the real reason but it would have been inadmissible if I had been pie-eyed.
|
>> The lorry driver thing is a red herring, the old bill are not biased to
>> arrest to lorry driver over anyone else, but if it is in the least bit
>> serious they will find SOMEONE to arrest on the spot.
>>
>> Lorry driver has nothing to do with it.
>>
I'm going to get splinters on this one, another healthy fence sit. I think Z is partially correct.
The principle of using an arrest power at a serious accident scene and whether or not it is appropriate...applies to all drivers.
But..... my impression is that lorry drivers are potentially 'up for grabs', because their vehicles can by definition make a lot of damage and they have difficult stopping distances etc, etc.
I definitely do not see it as a negative perception of lorry drivers frrom within the police, more a 'that's the way we do it' and lorry drivers being in the unfortunate position of regularly being involved and there being a need to show 'something is being done'.
Rather than carefully applying the appropriate thought processes on each and every occasion, my concern is of an automatic application, one that at times need not be done.
|
The preamble to the direct question in the first letter was a way of introducing the PDF and equally, a reason for asking the question.
The letter that has gone off this morning is far more precise.
Pat
|
>> The letter that has gone off this morning is far more precise.
Glad to hear it, i'm interested in the outcome.
If laws are over used (or abused) then they'll be taken away.....and that in turn causes difficulty. So they should be used sparingly, thoughtfully and with caution.
Some get so used to 'that's how we've always done it'..or..'it'll be easier like that' that they lose sight of the bigger picture.
|
I have replied to Mr Taylor asking for answers to specific questions;)
Pat
|
The driver in this case answers his police bail in the middle of next month when he may, or may not, find out if he's to be charged with anything.
I've seen other cases in which the driver is rebailed several times while inquiries continue, so he could be in for an anxious few months.
|
|
A 'first account' can be recorded at the scene. No need for arrest.
|
mega snipquote
>> So 'no' I do not think there's a speed problem...far from it....there's a problem with
>> people dawdling everywhere.
>>
So true. They're rather prevalent locally, particularly those that dawdle up dual carriageway slip roads or pull right out in front of you on 60 mph A roads then dawdle at 42 mph. One day they'll do it in front of a milk tanker and discover physics the hard way.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 29 Apr 12 at 18:15
|
|
There are both speeding and dawdling problems. Both are aspects of an even bigger poor driving picture.
|
>> There are both speeding and dawdling problems. Both are aspects of an even bigger poor
>> driving picture.
>>
Sadly true. There's the "I'm driving at the speed limit so I'm safe' the "I'm driving below the speed limit so I'm safest" and the 'I'm driving like my bum's on fire and I don't think about safety" "I have no idea what the speed limit is or what the conditions require so I'm doing 40 " These groups seem to make up a large part of today's drivers. The "I'm driving at a speed suitable for the conditions and making a conscious choice" group seems to be shrinking.
|
Everything wot Teabelly said.
I suspect (hope) most of us are in the last group
|
I'm not that bothered about dawdlers on the roads, apart from men in hats obviously.
I take it calmly and tell myself it doesn't really matter. Very few people do anything worthwhile with the few minutes they save by driving fast.
I get much more wound up on foot by other pedestrians who dawdle along, block my way, walk out of shop doorways without looking, stop suddenly.
It is curious that people who make such a fetish of "making progress" when driving don't do the same when walking.
|
...to which you can add that if people want to walk or dawdle 2 or 3 abreast then they should be prepared for you not to break stride as you approach them!
I like to walk at a brisk pace and the least they can do is try and keep out of the way. It's the only exercise I get.
|
'These groups seem to make up a large part of today's drivers. The "I'm driving at a speed suitable for the conditions and making a conscious choice" group seems to be shrinking.,
Not really - its just you getting older. Everything looks better in the past.
|
Driving at suitable speed for road conditions can cost you three points and sixty quid fine.
Between a rock and a hardplace.>:)
|
You can look at the relevant legislation and come to your own conclusions:
Serious and Organised Police Act 2005 gave a power of arrest for ALL offences where previously only more serious offences were arrestable.
Section 24 PACE
A constable may also arrest a person whom he reasonably suspects is about to commit, is committing or has committed an offence.
However the power of arrest is only exercisable if the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the arrest is necessary in accordance with specified reasons as contained within s24(5)(a)-(f):
(a) to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);
(b) to enable the address of the person in question to be ascertained (as above);
(c) to prevent the person in question-
(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury;
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency; or
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(d) to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;
(e) to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;
(f) to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.
Therefore the Police must have reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed an offence and the arrest would allow the prompt and effective investigation. An arrest purely to facilitate some administrative purpose in my mind would be a wrong one. Now the elements of that suspicion may be many,varied or at the time obscure but nevertheless must provide 'reasonable suspicion'. This test must also pass the scrutiny of the Custody Sergeant. Further investigation may refute that original suspicion.
Now the scene of serious and fatal collisions is pretty chaotic, where hypothesis and opinions can abound but generally an educated guess can be made as to the cause/s and that would be where my 'reasonable suspicion' would be formed.
|
|
I'm loath to suggest that it's an admin thing - the cost of a charge and bail is the fraction of a summons.
|
|
Element of speedier justice. Drink Drive was always 'report for summons'. Now its all charge and bail straight to court. Even with blood analysis its bail back to the nick and then charge if over the limit.
|
Another nasty one - Londoner
