Having spent a few hours reading through a really long thread on this tragic tale - there are one or two rather worrying comments made.
Namely - the experience, skills and training up to what we hope to meet our demandingly high standards.
Now -
We all have various skills and abilities and I definitely do not possess the skills of young Lewis Hamilton or Sebastian Loeb. In our team - all have passed the course to very demanding standard - but there are members of the public who are equally able just the same. We have just enhanced and developed further - certain skills - namely the teamwork .. the ability to box in a felon - but we try to do so with full regard to safety for all. That's the remit and the basic rubric within those training programmes.
We have members of our team who have trained from scratch to our RPU team. No driving licence on entry - but accepted to our course based on what we judgd to have the makings of a decent advanced driver. - and they have out-classed some who enhanced already well able and previously acquired skills on our training courses.
No training imbues automatically with the ability NEVER to "get it badly wrong". It can help us difuse and deal with a situation.
It can help us defend ourselves.. plan efficiently and effectively.
It does not ever guarantee we will never make mistakes.. have collisions or simply get things wrong - misjudge a situation - which can be or even look "dangerous" but may be down to "carelessness/inconsideration" - which still does not make things any better.
in real terms
- but can matter when we are in a court room facing a judge and jury.
BUT
- but we can never rule anything out - especially when driving at speed on a rural road - where let's face it - where Co Durham fails significantly if you look at our stats a bit more closely
(BIkers ., motorists who misjudge these roads and even police and other emergency trained staff can and do likewise.). We tend to call off pursuits because we have a duty of care to the public, our teams out there and even the villain we are trying to rein in.
But let's look at this a bit more closely. The deceased was 67 years old. Let's say he had - say 40 years or so of driving experience behind him. A retired academic. Possibly no blots on his licence and just supposing, for one second that there were - then the "transgression" would more than likely the result of being a smidgeon above the lolly in Kodak County perhaps.
So ... an experienced driver in his own right and to the required standard of competence and more than likely never broken a traffic law in his life.
We have on the other side - two drivers who had the benefit of very advanced training. Th argument seems to be that "they should have known better". Indeed, No one person can realistically disagree on that.
But when we come to court case and opinions that this training will count in their defence - we are not quite on such a "winner".
Past expertise does not really count for that much when you are facing some very hard and searching questions on a witness stand - on oath - as to what you did and why you did whatever on this ONE occasion. You are being questioned on what you did in relation to this incident for which you are accused of wrong-doing - and it is up to the accused to convince those sitting in that court room that he or she is innocent of being "dangerous" in this case..
Now how far "dangerous" they were, in real terms, (sigh..
) really depends on what the CPS loaded up against them in court and how they
presented the case. The defence team will be trying to find chinks in their case/allegations to sway towards that soupcon of doubt in the minds of a jury.
But I then read one comment in that thread - comparing to the road's history of "blackspot" should also then not be a factor in a current case.
Again - we are talking of a road which has a history of being dangerous.
Folk complaining of speed cams suggest that the cams should only be placed on roads known to be "black spots" :roll;
Such roads in scam pratnership zones have "Speed Cams" on them based on "what happened in past three-four years" - or are heavily re-engineered and polcied - like the Cat and Fiddle and its similar roads.
So again - :scratchchhin: the fact that a road is known to be "hazardous" will certainly feature in a court case trying to establish and test out how far dangerous or careless or negiligent or inconisderate the accused was on the occasion. I have used the road's history in the past when presenting the collated case evidence to the CPS for their case in the past
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
even raced on some meet on it .. much to our alarm as she was young.. recent to this country .. and PREGNANT /.. when she did that. I went beserk with her .. as did the Mad Doc at the time. 
