Skip to content

Discuss This Death crash policewoman escapes charges because ‘phone was in her lap’ General news

You are in... Forums > Discuss This > General news > Death crash policewoman escapes charges because ‘phone was in her lap’

This is a discussion topic

This discussion topic is linked to an article on this site. You can navigate to the article by clicking on the article name in the first post.

Go to most recent reply

Anonymous

Joined:

Posts:

Steve Farrell  says:

Death crash policewoman escapes charges because ‘phone was in her lap’

A policewoman who caused a crash that killed a motorcyclist while talking on her phone has escaped prosecution after saying the device was in her lap. The Crown Prosecution Service says there is not enough evidence that Collette Carpenter, 23, committed an offence. Carpenter, a special constable who has handed out at least six fines for using a phone while...

Reply to this Topic  
  • Posted 2 years ago (19 February 2013 09:30)

Post a message in General news

Fields marked with an asterisk * are required

   

Please note. You cannot submit more than 4000 characters as a message.

Upload image(s) from your computer (up to 3 images)

  1.  
  2.  
  3.  

Terms of use

Use of our community areas and forums is subject to important terms of use. By joining our community and using the features you agree to be bound by these terms. See terms of use below. 

Cancel
fivebyfive

Joined:

Aug 06

Posts: 29

fivebyfive says:

Register a complaint

As McMuddle says, register a complaint..or nothing will ever change. No use moaning on here about anything. They don't read this forum at the CPS. I complained the day the story broke, received a written acknowledgement on Feb 14th and have been promised a response from the Deputy District Crown Prosecutor for CPS Wessex.

Reply to this Topic
Hedgehog5

Joined:

Aug 02

Posts: 2319

Hedgehog5 says:

Greenturbobob...

You wanna talk highway code?

Rule 167 : "DO NOT overtake where you might come into conflict with other road users. For example approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road"

It would appear he was on the wrong side of the road which she may have been unsighted to & had presumed to be clear. If you think overtaking past a junction is a good idea then enjoy your short life but don't die in the belief that you were entirely without blame. As I said earlier, the fact that someone was killed, & that she persistently lied despite being clear in the knowledge of the implications of that lie, should be enough to bring a prosecution leaving the outcome to a court.

 

Reply to this Topic
ddrooster

Joined:

Mar 11

Posts: 25

ddrooster says:

one rule for us

typical of the dual standards  

one rule applys to  us where we are given no choice but to go to court and get shafted 
and  our loyal  servants the boys in blue done even get chastised 
and they wonder why we dont help them 

Reply to this Topic
greenturbobob

Joined:

Nov 05

Posts: 121

Hedgehog

"MUST" is must and is mandatory however, "DO NOT" is advisory as per ROSPA's definition: Rule 167 of the Highway Code advises drivers and riders not to overtake when it might cause conflict with other road users, for example: approaching or at a road junction on either side of the road etc. 


 Note the word "Advises"!!! This might not be the highway code but "DO NOT" is advisory.  

Whilst Overtaking coming to a junction isnt ideal and should be avoided there may well be some blame but you cant avoid the fact that pulling out of a junction without looking correctly is dangerous.... And let me guess you have never overtaken over a junction have you?

[This Reply has been modified by the Author]

Reply to this Topic
Hedgehog5

Joined:

Aug 02

Posts: 2319

Hedgehog5 says:

greentrubobob... I agree...

"And let me guess you have never overtaken over a junction have you?"

Once... I learnt... stupid move if you can't see the road ahead... & be prepared for someone to pull out if you can. Regardless of fault he either couldn't or wasn't... end of story I'm afraid... RIP :(

I think we fundimentally agree... there's enough for a prosecution... it was your "Simples" statement when it's not that clear cut & there are clear mitigating circumstances which would be taken into account in a court, which is where it should have been decided.

Reply to this Topic
greenturbobob

Joined:

Nov 05

Posts: 121

So do i agree!!

Yes i meant "simples" only into relation to the fact of pulling out from a side road onto a main carriageway is dangerous, and I didn't mean "simples" with this case. Because its not.. My fault for not explaining properly. Sorry! But yes we both agree there is a case to answer in general even if she isnt fully to blame.

Reply to this Topic
Bob_1

Joined:

Feb 05

Posts: 223

Bob_1 says:

Argue All You Like.....

...but I think we all know that if the driver hadn't been a copper and the victim hadn't been a motorcyclist this WOULD have gone to court.

Reply to this Topic
Markt7081

Joined:

Feb 13

Posts: 1

Markt7081 says:

Hang her High -- B/S

Love all the "hang her highers" on here.

Forget the phone.

Should be brought to trial for dangerous driving, or whatever & let the court decide.

Thats the Court, not the internet.

 

Reply to this Topic
smilo996

Joined:

Nov 08

Posts: 108

smilo996 says:

That it was in her laåp must be alright then. Perhaps she had it on vibrate & was waiting for a call. What happened to using hyandsfree car kits. No one seems to use them. I was recently nearly run over on my bicycle by a moron texting, talking to his bimbo and doing a u turne. When I expressed my frustratin, he looked at me as if to say "what am I doing wrong". Amazing.

Reply to this Topic
slider72

Joined:

Mar 05

Posts: 868

slider72 says:

Photo

Very smug by looking at the pic...taken after or before?

Reply to this Topic

Compare Insurance

Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy

Motorcycles for sale

 

It's only £13.99 to advertise your motorcycle on MCN

Sell your Motorcycle

Motorcycle pricing tool

New! Find used bike prices