On 15 Aug, 08:58, "nightjar" .me.uk>
wrote:
>> At long last they are starting to take notice that road killings are
>> just as bad as any other kind of killings and that the car can be a
>> lethal weapon like any other. Problem still is though that we live in
>> a saturated car culture where the police and the courts are
>> predominantly populated by motorists with an inevitable bias. How do
>> the police turn up to road crashes? In cars of course
>
> Have you actually seen what equipment goes into a Traffic Police car?
> Unpacked and standing alongside the car, it looks as though the car has to
> be related to the Tardis to get everything inside.
>
The point you are missing is that merely being car users themselves
the police are predisposed to take the side of the motorist except in
extreme cases.
>
>> and they usually
>> blame the vulnerable ped or cyclist victim first, as frequently
>> witnessed on TV.
>
> I don't recall ever seeing Police atending an accident involving a
> pedestrian or cyclist on TV.
>
Watched one last night with two incidents involving injured children
victims. In both cases the police blamed the kids instead of the
motorists who hit them. In one case the pensioner driver actually
admitted putting his foot on the accelerator instead of the brake by
mistake and yet the police somehow managed to turn this into a bit of
luck for not injuring the child more seriously!
>
> The programmes I sometimes see that show Police
> footage usually involve them going after cars, or the occasional stolen bus.
> Perhaps we have different viewing habits. However, IME, when Police arrive
> at an accident, they take detailed statements from every witness and, unless
> they have cause to arrest someone for it, don't comment on who might be
> responsible. It is part of their training not to say anything that might
> compromise future prosecutions.
>
In the examples given above that is what the cops said to camera and
there is no way of knowing what they noted down. However, my own
personal experience when hit by a car is that the police automatically
seem to assume at first that the cyclist must be at fault, which was
later corrected in my case.
>
>> "Drivers are being warned against distractions such as receiving text
>> messages, eating, and fiddling with satellite navigation systems,
>> ahead of new tougher laws.
>
>> A new offence of causing death by careless driving comes into force
>> across the UK next week.
>
>> It means motorists who kill while avoidably distracted could for the
>> first time face prison.
>
>> Historically, careless driving has only been punishable with a fine,
>> whatever the consequences..."
>
> I think most contributors here would think that a good move, although it
> would probably be better to police the careless driving better in the first
> place and avoid the accident.
>
It could be argued that now faced with imprisonment most drivers will
take more care to avoid killing people and avoid the distractions
which cause the crashes. An interesting point made on TV this morning
was that roadside advertising billboards are such a distraction so
such commercial graffiti should obviously be removed in the interests
of safety and, in the case of car adverts, misleading claims.
