Safe Speed Forums

Police complacency led to crash, says jury• PC convicted after fatal collision on B-road
• Force criticised over high-speed exerciseHelen Carter The Guardian, Wednesday October 8 2008
Article history

The scene of the accident last October. Photograph: Lancashire Police/PA

A jury yesterday convicted a police constable of careless driving, then sent a note to the trial judge accusing his force of "institutionalised complacency" for allowing a poorly managed high-speed training exercise on a country lane which resulted in a fatal collision.

PC Sean Schofield, 38, an advanced driver with Lancashire police, had been at the wheel of a high-performance Volvo T5 travelling at speeds of up to 104mph during the training exercise on a winding B road. He crossed on to the wrong side of the road at 94mph and crashed the vehicle on a bend, killing retired academic Peter Williams and injuring his wife, Jean.

The impact of the collision in November 2006 on the B6254 near Over Kellet, Carnforth, which had a 60mph speed limit, shunted the couple's VW Touran backwards and spun it 180 degrees.

Schofield, who was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving, was testing in-car Vascar equipment. This involved him chasing a car driven by trainer PC Andrew Massingham to register its speed.

The jury's note, which the judge said he fully endorsed, read: "The course was flawed by poor management, poor design and poor preparation from the highest level. We believe the Lancashire police force were guilty of institutionalised complacency with regards to training and driving at high speeds on open, public roads.

The jurors went on to make suggestions for all police forces: no training to exceed national speed limits on A-D roads unless they are closed to the public; training routes should be identified and risk assessed; and a risk assessment should be carried out for Vascar training.

Massingham was acquitted of causing death by dangerous driving and did not face the alternative charge. There was also a message for him from the jurors: "We believe that PC Massingham ... was also guilty of careless driving and shares the responsibility for this tragic accident," they said. Ten months after the crash, he was banned from driving for 28 days when he was caught driving at 92mph.

Williams, 67, who was travelling from his home in Bolton-le-Sands, Lancashire, for a short break with his wife in the Yorkshire Dales, died in hospital the next day. His widow, Jean, 65, told the court she saw two police cars hurtling towards them, recalling how one appeared to wobble, lose control and cross to the wrong side of the road, on to a grass verge and then back on to the road. Peter Williams was faced with an impossible choice because he "literally had nowhere to go".

Nicholas Johnson, prosecuting, said: "The inevitable followed: a high-speed, high-impact, head-on collision."

Schofield and a colleague, PC Jason Colclough, who was not charged, were being instructed in how to use a Vascar speed gun from a moving vehicle. Both officers were injured. The prosecution said it would have been obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous. The speed was "unsuitable and dangerous for the B road on which they were travelling," Johnson said.

Later, Schofield insisted to investigating officers that he had been travelling at a safe speed, and that Williams's car had been on the wrong side of the road. In evidence, Massingham said: "I was in charge of the course. I found out the following day that Mr Williams had died and it is a difficult burden to carry."

The Independent Police Complaints Commission said it would seek urgent discussions with Lancashire police about the findings of their investigation and if "there will be any disciplinary matters relating to the two officers".

...Training using simulators is a possible way round it but again are they realistic enough to give a reasonable experience that can be translated onto road driving?

[If they can make them realistic enough to train airline pilots, responsible for hundreds of lives at a time, they should be good enough for high speed driver training. (IMHO)

...once your off the deck and above the trees, pylons etc flying would seem to be fairly straight forward in terms of the interaction between your surroundings and your vehicle.

Even if they catch them, they get minimal sentences.
The thing to ask is: Is it worth the risk of killing someone ?
At the end of the day the other driver was killed during high speed driving, to train someone to operate a device to obtain the speed of those driving fast...
It's all about getting it right and at minimal risk to others. In that case, they got it wrong.

Keep calm. maintain steady normal driving, and simply assist the overtake