Undercover Hampshire police officer Steve Rawson's death crash 'an accident' after motorbike crash on Thomas Lewis Way

PC Steve Rawson

PC Steve Rawson

First published in Crime
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Crime Reporter

AN UNDERCOVER police officer died as a result of a road traffic accident, a jury inquest has ruled.

After six days of evidence into the death of PC Steve Rawson, the jury of six women and five men have given their verdict of accidental death this afternoon.

The 40-year-old dad-of-two was killed during a high speed crash involving a silver BMW that was turning right out of a petrol station.

PC Rawson was riding at around 90mph while on an undercover surveillance operation when the crash happened.

The inquest heard how Michal Pliszczynski, from Southampton, had turned into the petrol station to refuel but found that the forecourt was closed and decided to turn right out of the garage to find somewhere else to get fuel.

The verdict from the jury read: "Steve Rawson died on April 3 2013 at Southampton General Hospital of multiple injuries sustained in a road traffic accident on the A335 Thomas Lewis Way.

"The accident occurred as a result of a combination of various acts and omissions.

The foreman added that the conclusion of the jury was accidental death.

PC Rawson, from Bishopstoke, was playing what has been described as a "unique role" for Hampshire Constabulary and was trained to the highest level for what is one of the force's most at risk jobs.

He leaves behind a widow, Kerry, and two young children.

After the verdict Assistant Chief Constable Chris Shead from Hampshire Police said:  “Today has seen the conclusion of the inquest into the death of PC Steve Rawson. The verdict of the jury was accidental death.

“This was a complete tragedy for his wife Kerry, Steve's family and all of his colleagues.  Steve was an outstanding police officer, and his loss has been deeply felt throughout the force.

“Our thoughts continue to be with his family and friends.”

When asked if any changes within the force had been made as a result of PC Rawson's death a spokesperson added: "By the very definition officers involved in covert operations are trying not to be seen.

"However, were need to balance that against the vitally important issue of safety. As a result we have started an internal review to ensure we are doing everything we can to maximise the safety of those officers who are performing a covert role."

Speaking on behalf of PC Rawson's widow Kerry, John Apter, chair of the Hampshire Police Federation, said: "We are neither pleased nor disappointed because whatever the verdict it wouldn't have brought Steve back.

"It was a thorough inquest with all aspects of the incident scrutinised and examined so Kerry is grateful to the coroner and jury for that."

He added that he would now work with the constabulary to make sure any lessons are learned or improvements made to make the job safer for police officers.

He added: "Steve was a highly trained, professional, dedicated police officer. He loved the job he did and he was doing what was expected of him and what he was trained for.

"Whilst people may look at the speeds involved, you need to understand this is a unique role where officers are following dangerous individuals so that can keep the public safe and that will involved driving or riding at high speeds, which they are trained to do.

"On that day a number of events conspired against Steve and caused this tragedy to take place."

He added that the family are taking advice on what action to take next, considering all options open to them.

 

 

Comments (34)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:49pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Dasal says...

The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible?
Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.
The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible? Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts. Dasal
  • Score: -16

4:00pm Thu 26 Jun 14

not-me says...

Dasal wrote:
The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible?
Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.
As was reported yesterday, although there was a traffic order in place prohibiting a right turn from the garage, there was no signage indicating this.
[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible? Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.[/p][/quote]As was reported yesterday, although there was a traffic order in place prohibiting a right turn from the garage, there was no signage indicating this. not-me
  • Score: 19

4:01pm Thu 26 Jun 14

saintsfan76 says...

I read that there was no signage saying that you could not turn right out of this petrol station. And in evidence even one of the investigating officers had nver known that you were not allowed to turn right. Only after these tragic events was signage put up in the station and opposite it. A tragic story and thoughts are with the family of PC Rawson and the car driver who will have to live with what happened that day for the rest of his life. Sad thing is at 90mph PC Rawson never stood a chance of surviving such an impact.
I read that there was no signage saying that you could not turn right out of this petrol station. And in evidence even one of the investigating officers had nver known that you were not allowed to turn right. Only after these tragic events was signage put up in the station and opposite it. A tragic story and thoughts are with the family of PC Rawson and the car driver who will have to live with what happened that day for the rest of his life. Sad thing is at 90mph PC Rawson never stood a chance of surviving such an impact. saintsfan76
  • Score: 13

4:19pm Thu 26 Jun 14

S!monOn says...

Dasal wrote:
The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible?
Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.
The Highways Boss defended his decision NOT to install a sign there, which he felt wasn't necessary, but now one has been installed going against his recommendation?

Typical of Highway Bosses, always getting things wrong and doing things in hindsight.

RIP PC Rawson. You and your fellow officers do a great job, which is highly appreciated.
[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible? Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.[/p][/quote]The Highways Boss defended his decision NOT to install a sign there, which he felt wasn't necessary, but now one has been installed going against his recommendation? Typical of Highway Bosses, always getting things wrong and doing things in hindsight. RIP PC Rawson. You and your fellow officers do a great job, which is highly appreciated. S!monOn
  • Score: 14

4:42pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Uberarticuno says...

Dasal wrote:
The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible?
Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.
If you look at the exit it's very obvious that you shouldn't turn right there but because there was no sign it was not seen as the drivers fault.
[quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible? Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.[/p][/quote]If you look at the exit it's very obvious that you shouldn't turn right there but because there was no sign it was not seen as the drivers fault. Uberarticuno
  • Score: 3

4:48pm Thu 26 Jun 14

thinklikealocal says...

Uberarticuno wrote:
Dasal wrote:
The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible?
Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.
If you look at the exit it's very obvious that you shouldn't turn right there but because there was no sign it was not seen as the drivers fault.
Agreed.
[quote][p][bold]Uberarticuno[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible? Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.[/p][/quote]If you look at the exit it's very obvious that you shouldn't turn right there but because there was no sign it was not seen as the drivers fault.[/p][/quote]Agreed. thinklikealocal
  • Score: 3

4:49pm Thu 26 Jun 14

thinklikealocal says...

S!monOn wrote:
Dasal wrote:
The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible?
Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.
The Highways Boss defended his decision NOT to install a sign there, which he felt wasn't necessary, but now one has been installed going against his recommendation?

Typical of Highway Bosses, always getting things wrong and doing things in hindsight.

RIP PC Rawson. You and your fellow officers do a great job, which is highly appreciated.
I think you'll find that he was not the Highways boss when this road was built.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible? Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.[/p][/quote]The Highways Boss defended his decision NOT to install a sign there, which he felt wasn't necessary, but now one has been installed going against his recommendation? Typical of Highway Bosses, always getting things wrong and doing things in hindsight. RIP PC Rawson. You and your fellow officers do a great job, which is highly appreciated.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that he was not the Highways boss when this road was built. thinklikealocal
  • Score: 8

4:55pm Thu 26 Jun 14

BenLovesCassie says...

Question is, had the car driver turned left onto the road, would the circumstances had been the same.
At 90mph with little time to react, PC Rawson would have ploughed into the back of the car rather than the side. Still a fatal impact regardless.
Question is, had the car driver turned left onto the road, would the circumstances had been the same. At 90mph with little time to react, PC Rawson would have ploughed into the back of the car rather than the side. Still a fatal impact regardless. BenLovesCassie
  • Score: 21

4:57pm Thu 26 Jun 14

S!monOn says...

thinklikealocal wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
Dasal wrote:
The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible?
Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.
The Highways Boss defended his decision NOT to install a sign there, which he felt wasn't necessary, but now one has been installed going against his recommendation?

Typical of Highway Bosses, always getting things wrong and doing things in hindsight.

RIP PC Rawson. You and your fellow officers do a great job, which is highly appreciated.
I think you'll find that he was not the Highways boss when this road was built.
Read yesterday's report - 3 month's prior to the accident, Highways Boss John Harvey defended his decision not to install a new road sign.
[quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible? Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.[/p][/quote]The Highways Boss defended his decision NOT to install a sign there, which he felt wasn't necessary, but now one has been installed going against his recommendation? Typical of Highway Bosses, always getting things wrong and doing things in hindsight. RIP PC Rawson. You and your fellow officers do a great job, which is highly appreciated.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that he was not the Highways boss when this road was built.[/p][/quote]Read yesterday's report - 3 month's prior to the accident, Highways Boss John Harvey defended his decision not to install a new road sign. S!monOn
  • Score: 4

5:31pm Thu 26 Jun 14

wilson castaway says...

And still I see idiots doing a u turn there.Regards to the family.Awful situation.
And still I see idiots doing a u turn there.Regards to the family.Awful situation. wilson castaway
  • Score: 5

5:32pm Thu 26 Jun 14

biggus2 says...

Yes a Traffic Regulation was in force but that is like says there is a Traffic Regulation for a speed limit but we are not going to put up any speed limit signs. So Sign means it cannot be enforced. If you stand at the exit as I have on many occasions it is NOT obvious that you should not turn right. As the lady in the garage she sees it a number of times a day. The OBVIOUS thing to do would be to extend the central barrier so it is a physical impossibility to turn right. But then again the council wont do anything until a number of people have been killed or seriously injured. Agreed PC Rawson was speeding into a hazard and has contributed to this series of errors which culminated in this tragedy. But like it or not all of them contributed to it happening, including the Council.
Yes a Traffic Regulation was in force but that is like says there is a Traffic Regulation for a speed limit but we are not going to put up any speed limit signs. So Sign means it cannot be enforced. If you stand at the exit as I have on many occasions it is NOT obvious that you should not turn right. As the lady in the garage she sees it a number of times a day. The OBVIOUS thing to do would be to extend the central barrier so it is a physical impossibility to turn right. But then again the council wont do anything until a number of people have been killed or seriously injured. Agreed PC Rawson was speeding into a hazard and has contributed to this series of errors which culminated in this tragedy. But like it or not all of them contributed to it happening, including the Council. biggus2
  • Score: 4

5:52pm Thu 26 Jun 14

SouthamptonBoy65 says...

OK...again not knowing all the facts, nor the law in detail, but whether the driver knew he could turn right or not he couldn't be held to account as there was no sign.

Surely, therefore, the fact that the repsonsible authority hadn't done so , nor enforced a sign being there as a conscious decision it seems, this comes under corporate manslaughter legislation, no?
OK...again not knowing all the facts, nor the law in detail, but whether the driver knew he could turn right or not he couldn't be held to account as there was no sign. Surely, therefore, the fact that the repsonsible authority hadn't done so , nor enforced a sign being there as a conscious decision it seems, this comes under corporate manslaughter legislation, no? SouthamptonBoy65
  • Score: -4

6:48pm Thu 26 Jun 14

BeyondImagination says...

The sign issue is a red herring. The island stops short of where it should be so that drivers cannot turn right. This should be put right.
The sign issue is a red herring. The island stops short of where it should be so that drivers cannot turn right. This should be put right. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 7

7:23pm Thu 26 Jun 14

beesdee says...

This was an inquest into the rider's unfortunate death, not a criminal prosecution of the driver. I assume he could still be prosecuted for driving offences?
Regarding that location, I too have seen people Southampton-bound turning in to the petrol station when it's plainly obvious that it isn't allowed. The attitude these days with many drivers seems to be that they'll do whatever they like as long as they don't get caught. Anyone remember what it was like when the majority of drivers had principles?
This was an inquest into the rider's unfortunate death, not a criminal prosecution of the driver. I assume he could still be prosecuted for driving offences? Regarding that location, I too have seen people Southampton-bound turning in to the petrol station when it's plainly obvious that it isn't allowed. The attitude these days with many drivers seems to be that they'll do whatever they like as long as they don't get caught. Anyone remember what it was like when the majority of drivers had principles? beesdee
  • Score: 3

7:31pm Thu 26 Jun 14

redsnapper says...

Never mind the right turn issue. The key factor must surely have been the illegal speed of the bike.
Never mind the right turn issue. The key factor must surely have been the illegal speed of the bike. redsnapper
  • Score: 9

7:55pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Turtlebay says...

How can there be any justification that an unmarked police motorbike (thus no blue lights) was travelling at well over the maximum speed limit? How can any motorist know that an approaching motor bike is speeding and how can they react safely? Are we all to stop and give way every time to ALL motorbikes in case they are being ridden by plain clothed police?
How can there be any justification that an unmarked police motorbike (thus no blue lights) was travelling at well over the maximum speed limit? How can any motorist know that an approaching motor bike is speeding and how can they react safely? Are we all to stop and give way every time to ALL motorbikes in case they are being ridden by plain clothed police? Turtlebay
  • Score: 16

8:05pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Niel says...

not-me wrote:
Dasal wrote:
The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible?
Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.
As was reported yesterday, although there was a traffic order in place prohibiting a right turn from the garage, there was no signage indicating this.
Not strictly accurate, there were and are two 'NO U TURN' signs on the island, and as there are no 'end of no u turn' signs the drivers right turn was in effect an illegal U turn. The NEW 'no right turn' sign is misleading as it indicates no right turn out of the garage, into the North bound lane. The only way to stop this is to extend the island by at least 10m at each end!
[quote][p][bold]not-me[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible? Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.[/p][/quote]As was reported yesterday, although there was a traffic order in place prohibiting a right turn from the garage, there was no signage indicating this.[/p][/quote]Not strictly accurate, there were and are two 'NO U TURN' signs on the island, and as there are no 'end of no u turn' signs the drivers right turn was in effect an illegal U turn. The NEW 'no right turn' sign is misleading as it indicates no right turn out of the garage, into the North bound lane. The only way to stop this is to extend the island by at least 10m at each end! Niel
  • Score: 1

8:13pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Niel says...

BenLovesCassie wrote:
Question is, had the car driver turned left onto the road, would the circumstances had been the same.
At 90mph with little time to react, PC Rawson would have ploughed into the back of the car rather than the side. Still a fatal impact regardless.
IF the driver had turned left then most likely there would have been space for the motorcycle to pass safely, with the 20p 50p 20p 50p 20p effect on the rider and possibly the driver, pulling across the lane to turn right effectively closed the space to nothing. So quite probably no impact at all IF he had turned left.
[quote][p][bold]BenLovesCassie[/bold] wrote: Question is, had the car driver turned left onto the road, would the circumstances had been the same. At 90mph with little time to react, PC Rawson would have ploughed into the back of the car rather than the side. Still a fatal impact regardless.[/p][/quote]IF the driver had turned left then most likely there would have been space for the motorcycle to pass safely, with the 20p 50p 20p 50p 20p effect on the rider and possibly the driver, pulling across the lane to turn right effectively closed the space to nothing. So quite probably no impact at all IF he had turned left. Niel
  • Score: -1

8:15pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Joseph Public says...

redsnapper wrote:
Never mind the right turn issue. The key factor must surely have been the illegal speed of the bike.
So very sorry for the families and the car driver but, sadly, I agree with redsnapper. The Police, and other services, do so much for us and it is terrible when these tragedies occur. He was on duty so let's not forget that whatever he was doing he was there on our behalf.

RIP Officer
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Never mind the right turn issue. The key factor must surely have been the illegal speed of the bike.[/p][/quote]So very sorry for the families and the car driver but, sadly, I agree with redsnapper. The Police, and other services, do so much for us and it is terrible when these tragedies occur. He was on duty so let's not forget that whatever he was doing he was there on our behalf. RIP Officer Joseph Public
  • Score: 11

8:55pm Thu 26 Jun 14

ZRX says...

Traffic accident, the motorist should of been charged with at least careless driving in my opinion. Been following this court case and if you read witness report as reported in the echo said motorist entered garage, found it closed, went to turn right on exiting and stopped in the lane thus blocking it and looking left. Leaving no where for the officer to go.
Speed, bikes these days can accelerate quickly and just as quick stop in the right hands which being a highly trained officer he would be able to do.
That road is long and straight so to me this is another case of
S.M.D.N.S.Y. to all you non motorcyclists stands for (sorry mate did not see you)

Rest in peace
Traffic accident, the motorist should of been charged with at least careless driving in my opinion. Been following this court case and if you read witness report as reported in the echo said motorist entered garage, found it closed, went to turn right on exiting and stopped in the lane thus blocking it and looking left. Leaving no where for the officer to go. Speed, bikes these days can accelerate quickly and just as quick stop in the right hands which being a highly trained officer he would be able to do. That road is long and straight so to me this is another case of S.M.D.N.S.Y. to all you non motorcyclists stands for (sorry mate did not see you) Rest in peace ZRX
  • Score: -7

9:11pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Zexagon says...

ZRX wrote:
Traffic accident, the motorist should of been charged with at least careless driving in my opinion. Been following this court case and if you read witness report as reported in the echo said motorist entered garage, found it closed, went to turn right on exiting and stopped in the lane thus blocking it and looking left. Leaving no where for the officer to go.
Speed, bikes these days can accelerate quickly and just as quick stop in the right hands which being a highly trained officer he would be able to do.
That road is long and straight so to me this is another case of
S.M.D.N.S.Y. to all you non motorcyclists stands for (sorry mate did not see you)

Rest in peace
Yes the road has chevrons with no break in them to suggest your able to turn right. To think you can turn right out of that garage you shouldn't be on the road.i think the guy is foreign and in my opinion you should have to take an English test if you live here. I don't think I could drive abroad so I wouldn't even attempt it
[quote][p][bold]ZRX[/bold] wrote: Traffic accident, the motorist should of been charged with at least careless driving in my opinion. Been following this court case and if you read witness report as reported in the echo said motorist entered garage, found it closed, went to turn right on exiting and stopped in the lane thus blocking it and looking left. Leaving no where for the officer to go. Speed, bikes these days can accelerate quickly and just as quick stop in the right hands which being a highly trained officer he would be able to do. That road is long and straight so to me this is another case of S.M.D.N.S.Y. to all you non motorcyclists stands for (sorry mate did not see you) Rest in peace[/p][/quote]Yes the road has chevrons with no break in them to suggest your able to turn right. To think you can turn right out of that garage you shouldn't be on the road.i think the guy is foreign and in my opinion you should have to take an English test if you live here. I don't think I could drive abroad so I wouldn't even attempt it Zexagon
  • Score: -3

9:22pm Thu 26 Jun 14

PracticoJoe says...

Turtlebay wrote:
How can there be any justification that an unmarked police motorbike (thus no blue lights) was travelling at well over the maximum speed limit? How can any motorist know that an approaching motor bike is speeding and how can they react safely? Are we all to stop and give way every time to ALL motorbikes in case they are being ridden by plain clothed police?
As usual, theres always a "plank" criticising a police officer, even in this tragic event. I could imagine the sort of work this officer was doing involves tracking people involved in serious criminal activity..who clearly dont pootle around within the speed limit and may be a been wise to being followed by the police. I have sympathy for all involved but please dont use this story to bash the police who literally put their lives on the line for the greater good for the majority of people.
[quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: How can there be any justification that an unmarked police motorbike (thus no blue lights) was travelling at well over the maximum speed limit? How can any motorist know that an approaching motor bike is speeding and how can they react safely? Are we all to stop and give way every time to ALL motorbikes in case they are being ridden by plain clothed police?[/p][/quote]As usual, theres always a "plank" criticising a police officer, even in this tragic event. I could imagine the sort of work this officer was doing involves tracking people involved in serious criminal activity..who clearly dont pootle around within the speed limit and may be a been wise to being followed by the police. I have sympathy for all involved but please dont use this story to bash the police who literally put their lives on the line for the greater good for the majority of people. PracticoJoe
  • Score: 2

9:31pm Thu 26 Jun 14

thesouth says...

redsnapper wrote:
Never mind the right turn issue. The key factor must surely have been the illegal speed of the bike.
Errrrrr it wasn't illegal, it was relevant to his job as an undercover police officer on an operation.
[quote][p][bold]redsnapper[/bold] wrote: Never mind the right turn issue. The key factor must surely have been the illegal speed of the bike.[/p][/quote]Errrrrr it wasn't illegal, it was relevant to his job as an undercover police officer on an operation. thesouth
  • Score: 2

9:45pm Thu 26 Jun 14

derek james says...

PracticoJoe wrote:
Turtlebay wrote:
How can there be any justification that an unmarked police motorbike (thus no blue lights) was travelling at well over the maximum speed limit? How can any motorist know that an approaching motor bike is speeding and how can they react safely? Are we all to stop and give way every time to ALL motorbikes in case they are being ridden by plain clothed police?
As usual, theres always a "plank" criticising a police officer, even in this tragic event. I could imagine the sort of work this officer was doing involves tracking people involved in serious criminal activity..who clearly dont pootle around within the speed limit and may be a been wise to being followed by the police. I have sympathy for all involved but please dont use this story to bash the police who literally put their lives on the line for the greater good for the majority of people.
clearly there is a border line when the risk to the public or police themselves driving at these sort of speeds in city limits in an unmarked vehicle is greater than the return for chasing criminals.
[quote][p][bold]PracticoJoe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Turtlebay[/bold] wrote: How can there be any justification that an unmarked police motorbike (thus no blue lights) was travelling at well over the maximum speed limit? How can any motorist know that an approaching motor bike is speeding and how can they react safely? Are we all to stop and give way every time to ALL motorbikes in case they are being ridden by plain clothed police?[/p][/quote]As usual, theres always a "plank" criticising a police officer, even in this tragic event. I could imagine the sort of work this officer was doing involves tracking people involved in serious criminal activity..who clearly dont pootle around within the speed limit and may be a been wise to being followed by the police. I have sympathy for all involved but please dont use this story to bash the police who literally put their lives on the line for the greater good for the majority of people.[/p][/quote]clearly there is a border line when the risk to the public or police themselves driving at these sort of speeds in city limits in an unmarked vehicle is greater than the return for chasing criminals. derek james
  • Score: 6

9:47pm Thu 26 Jun 14

BeyondImagination says...

Are all car drivers to be prosecuted if involved in any accident with a plain police vehicle doing 90 in a 40 limit? The police officer was doing his best to not be seen. The general standard of driving attained by the average car driver is not high enough to cope with such situations. Sadly an officer died as a result.
Are all car drivers to be prosecuted if involved in any accident with a plain police vehicle doing 90 in a 40 limit? The police officer was doing his best to not be seen. The general standard of driving attained by the average car driver is not high enough to cope with such situations. Sadly an officer died as a result. BeyondImagination
  • Score: 5

9:55pm Thu 26 Jun 14

Charlie Bucket says...

S!monOn wrote:
thinklikealocal wrote:
S!monOn wrote:
Dasal wrote:
The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible?
Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.
The Highways Boss defended his decision NOT to install a sign there, which he felt wasn't necessary, but now one has been installed going against his recommendation?

Typical of Highway Bosses, always getting things wrong and doing things in hindsight.

RIP PC Rawson. You and your fellow officers do a great job, which is highly appreciated.
I think you'll find that he was not the Highways boss when this road was built.
Read yesterday's report - 3 month's prior to the accident, Highways Boss John Harvey defended his decision not to install a new road sign.
The road was only built three months before this accident? Weird.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thinklikealocal[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dasal[/bold] wrote: The Southampton Highways boss told the jury "although no sign at the petrol station, the traffic island and hatched markings sufficiently indicated right turns were disallowed" Does that not mean this driver was completing an ILLEGAL action, and could / should have been held responsible? Seems to be strange decision by this jury, but I grant that I am not aware of all the facts.[/p][/quote]The Highways Boss defended his decision NOT to install a sign there, which he felt wasn't necessary, but now one has been installed going against his recommendation? Typical of Highway Bosses, always getting things wrong and doing things in hindsight. RIP PC Rawson. You and your fellow officers do a great job, which is highly appreciated.[/p][/quote]I think you'll find that he was not the Highways boss when this road was built.[/p][/quote]Read yesterday's report - 3 month's prior to the accident, Highways Boss John Harvey defended his decision not to install a new road sign.[/p][/quote]The road was only built three months before this accident? Weird. Charlie Bucket
  • Score: -1

10:00pm Thu 26 Jun 14

issacchunt says...

This was the right result, 2 wrongs never make a right. Sad for everyone involved, but mostly for PC Rawsons loved ones.

maybe the council could extend the central island either end
This was the right result, 2 wrongs never make a right. Sad for everyone involved, but mostly for PC Rawsons loved ones. maybe the council could extend the central island either end issacchunt
  • Score: 3

10:05pm Thu 26 Jun 14

ZRX says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
Are all car drivers to be prosecuted if involved in any accident with a plain police vehicle doing 90 in a 40 limit? The police officer was doing his best to not be seen. The general standard of driving attained by the average car driver is not high enough to cope with such situations. Sadly an officer died as a result.
Yes any car driver who involved in accident and found to have broken the rules and regs of the road should be prosecuted,
What is needed is to reinstate the number of police patrol cars we had years ago, it would keep the numptys of the road,illegal drivers, not insured, not taxed, no mot , bad driving , no all we get are those speed cameras that all there , there for is raising money
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Are all car drivers to be prosecuted if involved in any accident with a plain police vehicle doing 90 in a 40 limit? The police officer was doing his best to not be seen. The general standard of driving attained by the average car driver is not high enough to cope with such situations. Sadly an officer died as a result.[/p][/quote]Yes any car driver who involved in accident and found to have broken the rules and regs of the road should be prosecuted, What is needed is to reinstate the number of police patrol cars we had years ago, it would keep the numptys of the road,illegal drivers, not insured, not taxed, no mot , bad driving , no all we get are those speed cameras that all there , there for is raising money ZRX
  • Score: -4

10:28pm Thu 26 Jun 14

gristle says...

90 mph chasing a suspect ?
90 mph chasing a suspect ? gristle
  • Score: 6

10:28pm Thu 26 Jun 14

wwozzer says...

BeyondImagination wrote:
Are all car drivers to be prosecuted if involved in any accident with a plain police vehicle doing 90 in a 40 limit? The police officer was doing his best to not be seen. The general standard of driving attained by the average car driver is not high enough to cope with such situations. Sadly an officer died as a result.
Sadly it matters not to what standard you have been trained to, riding at 90 MPH in a 40mph limit you will have zero chance if a car pulls out in front of you. In my opinion this was dangerous and irresponsible, if the bike rider hadn't been a police officer no one would have given a thought to the driver and the legality of his right turn, the rider would have been blamed fair and square and labeled a plank.

I have the upmost respect for our emergency services and the risks they take on our behalf but in this case it's fairly obvious the speed was wholly inappropriate in fact when can it ever be appropriate to drive or ride at such insane speeds on public roads surrounded by the general public? When does the crime involved justify such perilous behaviour?
[quote][p][bold]BeyondImagination[/bold] wrote: Are all car drivers to be prosecuted if involved in any accident with a plain police vehicle doing 90 in a 40 limit? The police officer was doing his best to not be seen. The general standard of driving attained by the average car driver is not high enough to cope with such situations. Sadly an officer died as a result.[/p][/quote]Sadly it matters not to what standard you have been trained to, riding at 90 MPH in a 40mph limit you will have zero chance if a car pulls out in front of you. In my opinion this was dangerous and irresponsible, if the bike rider hadn't been a police officer no one would have given a thought to the driver and the legality of his right turn, the rider would have been blamed fair and square and labeled a plank. I have the upmost respect for our emergency services and the risks they take on our behalf but in this case it's fairly obvious the speed was wholly inappropriate in fact when can it ever be appropriate to drive or ride at such insane speeds on public roads surrounded by the general public? When does the crime involved justify such perilous behaviour? wwozzer
  • Score: 8

12:19am Fri 27 Jun 14

Tallship says...

The unmarked motorbike was being driven at twice the road speed limt. Why? If they wanted to catch somebody why not use marked cars?
The unmarked motorbike was being driven at twice the road speed limt. Why? If they wanted to catch somebody why not use marked cars? Tallship
  • Score: 2

12:24am Fri 27 Jun 14

dango says...

As we haven't been told the exact nature of the officers roll within the police service, it's inappropriate to condemn his speed.
Certain branches of the service are allowed to exceed the speed limit without blues and twos. We don't know what he was responding to and it would be inappropriate to speculate.
IMO as a regular user of TLW and th garage, even without a no right turn sign, even Stevie Wonder could tell you it's a dangerous maneuver when exiting to turn right there.
RIP.
As we haven't been told the exact nature of the officers roll within the police service, it's inappropriate to condemn his speed. Certain branches of the service are allowed to exceed the speed limit without blues and twos. We don't know what he was responding to and it would be inappropriate to speculate. IMO as a regular user of TLW and th garage, even without a no right turn sign, even Stevie Wonder could tell you it's a dangerous maneuver when exiting to turn right there. RIP. dango
  • Score: 1

7:33am Fri 27 Jun 14

issacchunt says...

Tallship wrote:
The unmarked motorbike was being driven at twice the road speed limt. Why? If they wanted to catch somebody why not use marked cars?
You're not getting it are you, have you followed the case. They were covertly following people and needed to catch them up. A secret Police operation of which the public need no knowledge.

the Police have conceded that there are inherent dangers when doing that covertly and that is why the verdict is accidental.
[quote][p][bold]Tallship[/bold] wrote: The unmarked motorbike was being driven at twice the road speed limt. Why? If they wanted to catch somebody why not use marked cars?[/p][/quote]You're not getting it are you, have you followed the case. They were covertly following people and needed to catch them up. A secret Police operation of which the public need no knowledge. the Police have conceded that there are inherent dangers when doing that covertly and that is why the verdict is accidental. issacchunt
  • Score: 2

8:30am Fri 27 Jun 14

Dai Rear says...

beesdee wrote:
This was an inquest into the rider's unfortunate death, not a criminal prosecution of the driver. I assume he could still be prosecuted for driving offences?
Regarding that location, I too have seen people Southampton-bound turning in to the petrol station when it's plainly obvious that it isn't allowed. The attitude these days with many drivers seems to be that they'll do whatever they like as long as they don't get caught. Anyone remember what it was like when the majority of drivers had principles?
No. He couldn't be prosecuted for any offence short of death by careless and that's clearly been investigated and is not going to happen.
I have to admit to finding it a little confusing that the operation was intended not to draw attention because travelling at such a speed would inevitably draw attention.. But I accept that the officer was probably aware that the target was coming from another direction.
[quote][p][bold]beesdee[/bold] wrote: This was an inquest into the rider's unfortunate death, not a criminal prosecution of the driver. I assume he could still be prosecuted for driving offences? Regarding that location, I too have seen people Southampton-bound turning in to the petrol station when it's plainly obvious that it isn't allowed. The attitude these days with many drivers seems to be that they'll do whatever they like as long as they don't get caught. Anyone remember what it was like when the majority of drivers had principles?[/p][/quote]No. He couldn't be prosecuted for any offence short of death by careless and that's clearly been investigated and is not going to happen. I have to admit to finding it a little confusing that the operation was intended not to draw attention because travelling at such a speed would inevitably draw attention.. But I accept that the officer was probably aware that the target was coming from another direction. Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree