A police sergeant has been fined after his patrol car hit an eight-year-old boy on a zebra crossing as he responded to a 999 call.
Paul Beazer, 36, pleaded guilty at Eastbourne Magistrates' Court to careless driving.
The court heard Beazer was responding to a report that two men were fighting with sticks on June 19 last year.
He had the Toyota Avensis's blue lights and sirens on and slowed down to around 30mph as he reached the zebra crossing in London Road, St Leonards.
The court heard his path across the crossing was blocked for a few moments until a car pulled over to allow him through.
Beazer said: "As I pulled out to go across the crossing I noticed the child and we made eye contact.
"He got to the edge of the pavement and stopped. As he had seen me I felt it was safe to proceed to cross."
The court heard the boy suddenly started sprinting.
Witness Elizabeth Harvey said: "As soon as the boy took his first step from the kerb I started swearing because I knew that he wouldn't be able to make it across."
Beazer said he braked lightly and steered to avoid the youngster but could not avoid hitting him at about 20mph.
At first Beazer, based at Bexhill, thought he had missed the boy until he looked in his rear-view mirror and saw him sprawled on the crossing.
Adrian Turner, prosecuting, said Beazer should have slowed down to take account of the risks.
Mr Turner said: "One has sympathy for him and others involved but one has to say that a risk could have been recognised."
Father-of-four Beazer, an officer for six years who was poised to join the Special Operations Unit, said he was "distraught" by the incident, which left him needing counselling.
He said: "I think I did everything I could at that time to be safe but, in hindsight, stopping and allowing the boy to cross would have been the only way to be fully safe."
Grant Vanstone, defending, said his client faced being disciplined by his force, before adding: "His career has been considerably affected by this."
The youngster, who was unaccompanied, had since made a full recovery.
Beazer was fined £100 and ordered to pay £35 costs. His licence will not be endorsed.
HIS LICENCE WILL NOT BE ENDORSED ?
|
I hate the scum policing this country more than most but:
a) Who lets an 8 year old out on his own.
b) *If* he made ey contact surely the lad must have seen him so he can't be blamed.
|
|
where i live you often see little kids about 4 years old playing by themselves, what on earth are the parents doing, i think the parents should be fine also, as their might keep the kids indoors then.
|
|
The kids by my mothers in Bradford about four years old are breaking into houses and dealing drugs plus breaking into cars
|
|
|
|
I personally think in this case the correct vedict was reached .Not all police are pratts they have a very difficult job the problem is is that there are.I think too few and are totally mismanaged.
I think one eg is chasing joy riders the police are on a hiding to nothing ,if they catch them the culprit is not punished and in the process if there is an accident it is always the police fault. I personnally believe we should have ten times more police well trained armed and give zero tolerance no matter what the crime,and backed up by strong heavy sentences.I do not care how full the prisons are as long as the streets are safe.Also make all drugs free on the state,that in its self would halve the crime figures
|
andy bairsto wrote:
>I personnally believe we should have
> ten times more police well trained armed and give zero
> tolerance no matter what the crime,and backed up by strong
> heavy sentences.I do not care how full the prisons are as
> long as the streets are safe.
Is that the streets of Germany, Andy? Or the UK?
|
|
|
|
Again whilst it seems a case of one law for...........
More importantly:
> a) Who lets an 8 year old out on his own.
> b) *If* he made ey contact surely the lad must have seen him so he can't be blamed.
Even if he did, up untill about the age of 9 kids have one track minds. If the kid's was on something else - the sweet shop, his mate on the other side, that would have been the ONLY thing his mind was dealing with.
Were his "parents"/"carers" prosecuted? I think not.
Reminds me of an incident I saw once at a pelican crossing.
Red man. Lots of people waiting. Wet greasy road and raining.
Big traffic car, multicoloured day-glo.
LOADS of lights: roofbar, hazards, flashing headlights, grille lights, you name it.
LOUD sirens.
And a "silly old bat" (50's and NOT obviously being cared for "in the community") walks out in front of it.
Somehow the car missed her.
Did she get done for jaywaking?
Oops, we don't even have a specific crime over here for that do we?
|
|
|
The Policeman in question was only doing his job - you'd want to see him if you were in trouble, wouldn't you? I certainally would, as quickly as possible.
He demonstrated commonsense by slowing to 30 mph at the crossing
I've seen much faster speeds used by local police through pedestrian crossings down here.
What was going through the kid's mind? At 8 yrs old, he shouldn't really be out on his own.
Anybody, however young or old takes attention of sirens/lights etc
Rgds
David
|
|
I'm ready to give him the benefit of the doubt
|
|
|
|
I sympathise with the policeman in this case. But why did he need "counselling"? Soon we'll be getting reports along the lines that a ten year old kid said "boo" to a policeman and as a result the policeman needed "counselling". Anyone know of any PLCs specialising in counselling? I'd like to buy some shares in one of them.
HJ
|
I think the general level of common sense support through this thread would be much appreciated.
Its amazing how many drivers react when faced by an oncoming emergency vehicle in response mode. They do exactly the opposite of what is expected. I think mostly its blind panic so frustrating as it is they can be excused.
However I have come across instances which I can say have been deliberate. That is people with 'eye contact' walking out into your path and cars with clear visibility pulling out into your path. Its sheer arrogant bloody mindeedness and 100% deliberate. Its their contribution to " the cause" - whatever that might be. What we do know is that they are not the victims that are being responded to!
|
Eyecontact is not infallable,
I can see a car coming and have "eyecontact" which I can assume means he is giving me the right of way. Of course he can then interperet my eyecontact as me giving him the right of way.
If would appear to not be the effective method of communication the police driver thought it was.
Has this anything to do with the sharp increase c200% (R4) increase in Police accidents or have the rest of us had our driving skills deteriorate by an alarming factor.
as ever
Mark
|
Nobody said " eye contact " was an effective method of communication. However is it not fair to suggest that if an emergency vehicle is responding to a call with all the necessary eqipment switched on and a pedestrian looks at the driver then they have then seen the vehicle. And is it not fair to suggest that having seen an emergency vehicle they should allow its free and safe passage. Thats notwithstanding that their sight and/or hearing is not impaired.
Or am I missing something here?
|
|
|
|
It's amazing the numbskulls you see who drop anchor and pull up immediately on the side of the road when an approaching emergency vehicle arrives. This, more often that not, hinders the progress of said vehicle, especially an 11 ton fire appliance!
I find the best way is to pull over to the nearside as far as possible and to keep going at a slower speed to allow a safe overtake. Vehicles in the opposite direction will do the same, giving a clear & safe passage through. Obviously this only applies to a road that is wide enough.
Rgds
David
|
|
Your right there David. Another favourite is to pull up alongside a bollard or similar obstruction so you cant get through.
|
|
|
|
|
i think the court got it right. The police office took reasonable precautions (saw the child, thought the child had stopped) but it went wrong. It was the policemans fault, no question, and he was fined. Mind you, what sort of debate would we be having if the child had died. The fine should be the same, shouldn't it?
|
|
|
