Habitual Speeder who killed 2, court case. 'Car had Tracker fitted'.

[Toxicvrs]

Scum.

[DanHarper]

2 people died sadly.

 

Ms MacDonald's son and Ms Hucknall's partner, Joseph Jones, who has since died, heard the noise and went to the scene moments after the collision.

 

Potentially 3? Suicide after witnessing the death of his mum and girlfriend?

[Ootohere]

http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240112/Kirkcaldy-teenager-Joe-jones-sees-mother-girlfriend-die-road-tragedy.html

[fabiamk2SE]

Potentially 3? Suicide after witnessing the death of his mum and girlfriend?

True that :(.

Very possible :(

[fabiamk2SE]

http://dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240112/Kirkcaldy-teenager-Joe-jones-sees-mother-girlfriend-die-road-tragedy.html

This is soo sad :(.

Cant even begin to comprehend how that poor lad is feeling :(

[XLBaconDoubleCheese]

Awful incident and very upsetting. I can't help but think though, even crossing in front of the jeep doing nearer 40 would have given the same results. The bloke driving clearly has no regard for speed limits but this incident wasn't 100% his fault. Walking over a crossing against the red man in front of a car is going to end in tears at some point. People (pedestrians) don't seem to have any regard for road safety, every day I see it, just walking straight out. If he'd been doing 40 chances are they'd still be dead, if they waited for the car to pass/crossing to stop the traffic they'd be alive for sure.

Very sad though.

[Phil-E]

Guessing he didn't know it was fitted.

 

But as above it was probably in the small print... which he probably didn't read!

 

52 in a 40 isn't exactly a major crime, basing it on 10% + 2 mph, it's only 6 mph over.  From the article it appears that the two unfortunate people who were killed made a substantial contribution to the incident by crossing against a red pedestrian light.

 

Have they not taken this speed from the black box though? So it would be accurate.

 

Phil

[iMatchu]

52 in a 40 isn't exactly a major crime, basing it on 10% + 2 mph, it's only 6 mph over.  From the article it appears that the two unfortunate people who were killed made a substantial contribution to the incident by crossing against a red pedestrian light.

Considering 10% +2 rule has no legal standing so its 12mph over, 

When braking the real effective speed decrease happens right at the end it of it.

Also the fact the faster you go the longer it takes to slow down the end cause would of meant he would of struck them probably at 35+ although I don't have the figures near me at the moment so can't verify them.

 

I can't remember if I've confused the figures or not

If you're doing only 40 instead of 30 you're still doing 28mph where you'd of stopped at 30 and the gap gets bigger the faster you go.

 

The scary one I always remember is if you're doing 100mph and emergency brake you still doing 71mph at the point the 70mph emergency brake would of stopped.

 

There is a TV clip of Angus McNairn and Gethin Jones (I think its them two?) doing a 50~ instead of 40 braking test I think for TV although I can find it atm that would show what I'm talking about.

[hooter]

Surely any information gathered by a tracker can't be used in court unless the driver was aware of the tracker being there? didn't know information could be used under the data protection act i looked into it as some of our work vans have trackers but have no stickers to alert the driver of this fact ?

Hi

 

I'm not a lawyer (English or Scottish) but I reckon it would be very easy to get the tracker evidence introduced to court.  As soon as the accused answers the question "what speed were you doing at the time of the accident" the tracker would be introduced as a way to verify the answer given, or to disprove the evidence just given.

[fabiamk2SE]

Hi

I'm not a lawyer (English or Scottish) but I reckon it would be very easy to get the tracker evidence introduced to court. As soon as the accused answers the question "what speed were you doing at the time of the accident" the tracker would be introduced as a way to verify the answer given, or to disprove the evidence just given.

I'm not so sure.

You cant produce a recording of a phonecall as evidence unless the person knows they're being recorded.

It might be treated in a similar way. I dont know. I'm not a lawyer either.

Maybe somebody who knows the law could clear this up. Id be interested.

[Ootohere]

He plead guilty to what he plead guilty to, so is awaiting background reports and sentencing.

 

So the Prosecution must have had the evidence it required from the Police / Crash investigation,

maybe provided from the Provider / Owner / Insurance company if it was their Land Rover Discovery or their Tracker.

 

The Driver of the Discovery maybe cooperated in allowing the use of the Information from the Tracker,

or maybe had no choice in the matter.

 

So done for various speeding events it appears from the newspaper reports.

[BJM]

You cant produce a recording of a phonecall as evidence unless the person knows they're being recorded.

 

 

Wrong.

 

Research, don't just post urban, "what-a-bloke-down -the-pub-told-me" myth as if it were fact.

 

There are significant differences between what is admissable in Criminal and Civil cases and how it should be ratified and presented, but at the end of the day it is up to the Judge to decide what is and isn't admissable.

[skodanorman]

I know this is circumstantial but if he was doing 52mph at the time of going past the crossing then he was giving it some beans around the roundabout. In the dark. In a built up area. In a two tonne vehicle. Not exactly responsible is he? Whilst you can't deny that they shouldn't have crossed the road when the red man was showing- this is certainly a case where excessive speed is the main cause of the incident. 

[fabiamk2SE]

Wrong.

Research, don't just post urban, "what-a-bloke-down -the-pub-told-me" myth as if it were fact.

There are significant differences between what is admissable in Criminal and Civil cases and how it should be ratified and presented, but at the end of the day it is up to the Judge to decide what is and isn't admissable.

For a start. Lower your tone. Theres no need to take a rude and abrupt stance. Im happy to admit im wrong if you can prove otherwise, but being rude around the subject just shows how narrow minded, obnoxious and stuck you are. So stop making yourself look a tit.

It was actually a solicitor that told me that. I stated im not trained in law myself at the end of the comment.

[vindaloo]

For a start. Lower your tone. Theres no need to take a rude and abrupt stance. Im happy to admit im wrong if you can prove otherwise, but being rude around the subject just shows how narrow minded, obnoxious and stuck you are. So stop making yourself look a tit.

It was actually a solicitor that told me that. I stated im not trained in law myself at the end of the comment.

 

Actually, yours is the post that more RTM-able. Maybe he wasn't being quite friendly but he didn't resort to name calling.

 

OTOH... If I've stepped in to something private between the two of you.... I'll get my coat....

[fabiamk2SE]

Actually, yours is the post that more RTM-able. Maybe he wasn't being quite friendly but he didn't resort to name calling.

OTOH... If I've stepped in to something private between the two of you.... I'll get my coat....

You never get the best reactions by speaking to people in an unfriendly way.

Speak to people how you want to be spoken to, i always think.

[gadgetman]

I'm not so sure.

You cant produce a recording of a phonecall as evidence unless the person knows they're being recorded.

It might be treated in a similar way. I dont know. I'm not a lawyer either.

Maybe somebody who knows the law could clear this up. Id be interested.

Depends on the reason for producing it.

There are exceptions for specific reasons in the DPA. same as your employer can record calls and not need to advise you if certain conditions are met

[Ootohere]

So Jailed & Banned.

 

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-30249350

Edited 28 November, 2014 by goneoffSKi