TABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….1

1. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND DECLARATION ………………………………………………..….2

2. EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS ……………………………………………………………………….….4

3. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5

4. ROAD/WEATHER CONDITIONS………………………………………………………………………………….6

5.1 GENERAL ROAD DESCRIPTION……………………………………………………………………………….....6

5.2 APPROACH FROM SNOWBERRY ROAD…………………………………………………………………..….7

6.1 IMMEDIATE COLLISION SCENE ………………………………………………………………………………....8

6.2 COLLISION VEHICLES …………………………………………………………………………………………….…..9

6.3 VEHICLE No: 1 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….….9

7.1 COLLISION SCENE – MARKS/DEBRIS………………………………………………………………………….10

7.2 BLOOD MARK………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…10

7.3 WHITE FIBRES………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…10

7.4 SCUFF MARKS ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….11

7.5 DEBRIS FIELD………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…11

7.6 SOFT PLASTIC COVER FROM HEADPHONES ………………………………………………………………11

8.1 SUMMARY OF WITNESS EVIDENCE PROVIDED ……………………………………………………..….12

8.2 EILEEN MARIE MCFARLANE:………………………………………………..…………………………………...12

8.3 SHARON LOWE:……………………………………………………………………..…………………………………12

8.4 JOHN FOY: …………………………………………………………………………………..…………………………..12

8.6 JOHN GORE: …………………………………………………………………………………….………………………13

8.7 RACHEL OWEN-SHINNAWEI:……………………………………………………………….…………………...13

8.8 JAMIE-LEIGH BROOKS:…………………………………………………………………….………………….……14

9. OTHER EVIDENCE ………………………………………………………………………............................. 15

10. INVESTIGATION………………………………………………………………………………………………………..15

11. OBSERVATIONS………………………………………………………………………………………………………..16

12. SEQUENCE OF EVENTS………………………………………………………………………………………………18

13. CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18

1 STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE AND DECLARATION

1.1 I understand that my overriding duty is to the Court, both in preparing reports

and in giving oral evidence. I have complied, and will continue to comply with

this duty.

1.2 I have done my best ion preparing this report to be accurate and complete and

have set out my terms of reference at the stat. I have mentioned all matters,

which I regard as relevant to the opinions I have expressed. All of the matters on

which I have expressed an opinion lie within my field of expertise.

1.3 I have drawn to the attention of the Court all matters of which I am aware which

might adversely affect my opinion.

1.4 Wherever I have no personal knowledge, I have indicated the source of factual

information upon which I have relied.

1.5 I confirm that I have complied with my duty to record, retain and reveal relevant

material in accordance with current legislation.

1.6 I have not included anything in this report, which has been suggested to me by

anyone without me forming my own independent view on the matter.

1.7 Where, in my view, there is a range of reasonable opinion, I have indicated the

extent of that range.

1.8 At the time of signing this report, I consider it to be completed and accurate, If

any fresh evidence comes to my attention which causes me to make any

correction or qualification, I will inform the person in charge of the case as soon

as reasonably practicable, giving my reasons.

1.9 I understand that this report will be evidence that I will give under oath, subject

to any correction or qualification I may make before swearing its veracity.

2 EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

2.1 I joined Merseyside Police in August 2004. I have 3 years experience as a Traffic

Patrol Officer. In that time I have attended and investigated numerous road

traffic collisions of various types, including those causing serious and fatal

injuries. I have received specific training in the investigation of fatal and serious

road traffic collisions.

2.2 Prior to joining Merseyside Police I obtained a 2:1 Bachelor of Arts Honours

Degree from Liverpool University. This included the subjects Sport, Health and

Recreation, and Sociology.

2.2 I am currently attached to the Merseyside Police Forensic Collision Investigation

Unit based at Wavertree Road Police Station, Liverpool. My role involves the

Investigation of Fatal and Serious Road Traffic Collisions within the Merseyside

area.

2.3 I hold an advanced driving qualification for the use of Police Motor cars and a

Standard qualification for the use of Police Motorcycles. I am trained in Police

Pursuit Management techniques and in the use of T.P.A.C. (Tactical pursuit and

containment) and H.O.S.T.Y.D.S. (tyre deflation) devices used for the Tactical

Resolution of Pursuits.

2.4 In September 2011 I attended and passed a Forensic Collision Investigation

Course held at Ai Training Services U.K. During this course I was trained

principally to determine the speed of vehicles from mark left on the road surface

and to scientifically reconstruct collisions. I was also trained in various methods

of skid testing including the use of Vericom and Skidman skid testing devices.

2.5 I have been trained in collision scene photography and also the use of Trimble

‘Total Station’ and ‘G.P.S.’ scene surveying equipment. I am also familiar with the

use of AutoCAD, a computerized plan drawing package that allows the accurate

production of scale drawings.

2.6 I have been trained in the downloading of Siemens VDO Incident Date Recorders

on Police Vehicles (IDR).

2.7 I am authorized and experienced in the use of the LTI, Unipar SL700 and TSS and

V.A.S.C.A.R. speed detection devices. I am trained in the use of and authorized to

download TSS CCTV systems fitted to Merseyside Police vehicles.

2.8 I am trained in the current procedures for dealing with drink drivers including the

use of the Lion and Camic Datamaster breathalyzer systems. I am authorized to

carry out Field Impairment tests.

3 INTRODUCTION

3.1 This report concerns the circumstances surrounding a fatal road traffic collision,

which occurred approximately 20:53 hours on Friday 20 th January 2012 on

Princess Drive, Liverpool 14.

3.2 It involved a female pedestrian and a motor vehicle.

3.3 As a result of the collision the pedestrian, Katie Ann BAKKER, sustained injuries

from which she died. There was extensive front-end damage to the vehicle.

3.4 I initially attended the collision scene at 21:59 hours in company with Constable

7986 RICHARDS.

3.5 In this case I have had sight of the following documents that have been provided

to me by the nominated Fatal Enquiry Officer, namely Police Constable 1254

Doyle and the Senior Investigating Officer, namely Sgt 1331 Mitchell.

Statement of Evidence: Eileen Marie MCFARLANE Dated: 26.01.12

Statement of Evidence: Sharon LOWE Dated: 28-01-12

Statement of Evidence: John Anthony FOY Dated: 20.01.12

Statement of Evidence: Kerrie Maria BAKKER Dated: 02-02-12

Statement of Evidence: Rachel OWEN-SHINNAWEI Dated: 26.01.12

Statement of Evidence: Jamie-Leigh BROOKS Dated: 01.02.12

Statement of Evidence: John Francis GORE Dated: 16.02.12

Record of Interview: Dean NUGENT Dated: 10.02.12

Post Mortem Report: Richard T SHEPHERD Dated: 20.02.12

4. ROAD/WEATHER CONDITIONS

4.1 The weather conditions upon my arrival were fine, dry and windy. There had

been recent light rain.

4.2 The road surface was in a fair state of repair and was slightly worn. The surface

was damp but free of any contaminants that may have contributed or caused

this collision.

4.3 The road is constructed of hot rolled asphalt with stone chippings and is of a

single carriageway design.

4.4 Skid tests were not conducted on the collision vehicle. This was due to the debris

inside the vehicle, which could have posed a health and safety risk. Also, there

were no visible skid marks from the collision vehicle so I would have been unable

to determine the speed of the vehicle. I did not however find any sign of

contaminants on the road surface that would, in my opinion, have affected the

collision vehicle’s braking efficiency.

5.1 GENERAL ROAD DESCRIPTION

5.1.1 Princess Drive is made up of a mix of dual and single carriageway. It runs

Northwest to Southeast and links Deysbrook Lane and Liverpool Road.

5.1.2 The area of Princess Drive where this collision occurred is actually single

carriageway. It has two lanes in total, one for traffic travelling Southeast, and

one for travelling Northwest. These are separated by central broken white line

markings.

5.1.4 It is situated in a residential are and bordered on both sides by driveways and

kerb height wide grassed verges. Beyond these is a footpath, and residential

premises. (As depicted in Photograph No. 1)

5.1.5 At the collision site the houses to the Southwest side of the road are set back

further from the carriageway than is the case further along the carriageway in

either direction. At this point there is a wider grassed verge and a service road

giving access to a crescent of houses set well back from the carriageway.

5.1.6 The road is illuminated by low-pressure sodium lighting, which is situated on

columns at each side of the carriageway. These were all working correctly at the

time of my attendance.

5.1.7 The road is subject to a 30 M.P.H speed limit.

5.2 APPROACH FROM SNOWBERRY ROAD

5.2.1 The following description should be read in conjunction with Photograph Album

Ref No. CW2A, Exhibit ………………….. and the Scale Plans Ref No. CW4.

5.2.2 On the approach to the collision site travelling Southeast the road ahead is

straight.

5.2.3 On the approach to the collision site on the nearside of the road there were two

parked vehicles on the driveway outside number 435. The view of these

Vehicles was of the full length of the nearside of a van, and a car parked directly

behind. (As depicted in photograph No’s 1 and 2)

5.2.4 There were a further two cars parked beyond these on the same driveway

outside number 437. The van and car outside 435 obscured the view of the

vehicles parked outside 437. All 4 vehicles were parked facing the houses.

6.1 IMMEDIATE COLLISION SCENE

6.1.1 The following description should be read in conjunction with the Photograph

Album Ref No. CW2A, Exhibit …………………… and the Scale Plans Ref No. CW4.

6.1.2 The immediate collision location occurred on the Southeast bound lane of

Princess Drive.

6.1.3 A single blood mark was located on the road surface. This was opposite the

driveway of number 447 Princess Drive. (As depicted within Photograph No. 14

and described in paragraph 7.2.2)

6.1.4 There were no marks to indicate the first point of impact between the

pedestrian and vehicle on either the road surface or pavement.

6.1.5 There were no marks on the road surface from the vehicle’s tyres.

6.1.6 There was quite a large debris field consisting of pieces of plastic and vehicle

parts.

6.1.7 The surface of the road is generally level with a slight camber to assist with

drainage.

6.2 COLLISION VEHICLES

6.2.1 There was only one vehicle involved in this collision together with one

pedestrian. I was informed that the vehicle had travelled from Snowberry Road, turned

left onto Princess Drive and travelled towards Liverpool Road.

6.2.2 I was informed that the vehicle was in its post collision position.

6.2.3 The following vehicle descriptions should be read in conjunction with the

Photograph Album Ref No CW2A, Exhibit …………………… and the Scale Plans Ref No CW4.

6.3 VEHICLE No: 1

6.3.1 Namely a silver Ford Fiesta, registration KM08 XZO.

6.3.2 The vehicle was owned and driven by Dean NUGENT.

6.3.3 The vehicle was positioned within its own lane of the carriageway, adjacent to

the shared driveway of numbers 447 and 449 Princess Drive. It was facing in the

correct direction for its lane, towards Liverpool Road. (As depicted within

Photograph No’s 22 and 12)

6.3.4 There was extensive front-end damage to the vehicle. There was damage to the

front bumper and bonnet, and the windscreen was punctured on the nearside.

The front nearside light cluster had also become detached. The front number

plate and grille were missing. (As depicted within Photograph No’s 15, 16 and

17).

6.3.5 The front nearside of the roof of the car did show some indication of the surface

having been in contract with an object. There was evidence of a few scuffmarks.

(As depicted within Photograph No 18.)

6.3.5 For a more detailed description of vehicle damage/condition etc, please refer to

the vehicle examination report prepared by Mr. John GORE.

7.1 COLLISION SCENE – MARKS/DEBRIS

7.1.1 Upon my initial attendance I noted that a road closure had been affected to

prevent the destruction of any marks present and the interference or movement

of debris.

7.1.2 Examination of the scene and the approaches revealed the following items of

interest. The positions of which have been included in the Photograph Album Ref

No CW2A, Exhibit ………………….. and the Scale Plans Ref No CW4.

7.2 BLOOD MARK

7.2.1 A small single blood mark was situated on the road surface outside number 447

Princess Drive.

7.2.2 This was located 4.8 metres behind the rearmost part of the Ford Fiesta and 3.0

metres from the Northeast kerb. (As depicted within Photograph No 14).

7.2.3 In my opinion this mark has occurred as a result of the collision, and is where the

pedestrian came to rest after the impact.

7.3 WHITE FIBRES

7.3.1 There were traces of white fibres trapped within the road surface.

7.3.2 These began approximately 9 metres from the rear of the vehicle and 3.2 metres

from the Northeast kerb. These fibres continued in a line for approximately 4

metres towards the blood mark.(As depicted within Photograph No’s 12 and 13).

7.3.3 In my opinion the tufts of white fibres have come from the pedestrian’s clothing

as she slid to a halt along the road surface.

7.4 SCUFF MARKS

7.4.1 On the roof of the car there were a small number of scuffmarks. (As depicted

within Photograph No 18).

7.4.2 These marks were located on the front of the roof directly above the windscreen

damage, on the nearside of the vehicle.

7.4.3 In my opinion these marks have been caused by the light contact made with the

pedestrian as she has travelled over the roof of the vehicle.

7.5 DEBRIS FIELD

7.5.1 There were several items of debris within the debris field consisting of plastic

pieces. Most of these were dull black plastic such as is found on the underside of

vehicles. However, one was the towing eye cover from the offside of the front

bumper of the vehicle. (As depicted within Photograph No’s 9 and 10.)

7.5.2 The towing eye cover was located in the southeast carriageway, 2.77 metres

from the nearside road edge. This was opposite number 437 Princess Drive. (As

depicted in Photograph No. 9 and 10.)

7.5.3 In my opinion this was detached by the impact, causing the towing eye cover to

fall from the vehicle.

7.6 SOFT PLASTIC COVER FROM HEADPHONES

7.6.1 There was a small piece of soft white plastic material in the Northeast gutter.

From the shape and nature of this it appeared to be the cover from one earpiece

of a set of in ear headphones.

7.6.2 This was located adjacent to the driveway of number 437 Princess Drive, on the

Southeast bound lane, in line with the nearside kerb edging stones. (As depicted

in Photograph No’s 7 and 8).

7.6.3 In my opinion this had become detached from the headphones that were in the

pedestrian’s possession.

8.1 SUMMARY OF WITNESS EVIDENCE PROVIDED

8.1.1 Statements have been obtained from several witnesses in relation to this

incident, however only one member of the public has actually witnessed the

silver Ford Fiesta colliding with the pedestrian.

8.2 EILEEN MARIE MCFARLANE:

8.2.1 MCFARLANE is a resident of Princess Drive. She was at home at the time of the

collision and attended the scene after hearing a ‘thud’ outside. She stated she

saw a person dressed all in black on the floor. MCFARLANE stated she went to

assist the girl and noticed a pair of small white earphones lying between the

casualty’s waist and knees.

8.3 SHARON LOWE:

8.3.1 LOWE is a registered nurse who was driving along Princess Drive and came

across the collision. She commenced C.P.R. until the paramedics arrived.

8.4 JOHN FOY:

8.4.1 FOY is the father of the deceased and he formally identified her as Katie Ann

BAKKER.

8.5 KERRIE MARIA BAKKER

8.5.1 Kerrie BAKKER is the mother of the deceased. She stated that Katie had decided

she wanted to go to the chip shop on Finch Lane to buy some food. At 20:45

hours Kerrie BAKKER left her house with a friend and her daughter Katie. Karrie

BAKKER stated that Katie walked to the right, towards Princess Drive whilst she

and her friend walked to the left.

8.5.2 Kerrie BAKKER stated that she called Katie back to give her the house key. She

stated that she had to shout to her daughter because she had her headphones

in.

8.5.3 Kerrie BAKKER also stated “On the right in question, Katie was, as she usually did,

using the Blackberry Mobile, and when I last saw her she was typing on her

phone and wearing her headphones. Katie, in my opinion, was a bit obsessed

with the phone and was never away from it. She was always texting, on

Facebook, BBM (Blackberry Messenger) as well as listening to music. A lot of the

time she had her earphones in, and I am confirm when I last saw her, she was

wearing the earphones. I have always told Katie that she was using the phone

too much – she was either listening to music or constantly texting. I had warned

her in the past about her own safety because she went everywhere with the

phone in her hand.

8.6 JOHN GORE:

8.6.1 Mr. Gore is the authorized vehicle examiner for Merseyside Police and has

examined the silver Ford Fiesta registration number KM08 XZO. He could find no

defect that would have caused or contributed towards this collision.

8.7 RACHEL OWEN-SHINNAWEI:-

8.7.1 OWEN-SHINNAWEI is the girlfriend of the driver, NUGENT, and she was sitting in

the front passenger seat of the vehicle at the time of the collision She Stated that

she does not drive herself, but would describe NUGENT as a careful driver.

8.7.2 She stated that NUGENT was driving her home and was driving his Ford Fiesta

that he got for his birthday on 6th January.

8.7.3 She stated that she thought the speed limit on Princess Drive was 30M.P.H., and

that NUGENT was not speeding. She stated that as they travelled along Princess

Drive she does not recall any other vehicles ahead or any parked cars.

8.7.4 She stated that she did not see the pedestrian, and that the first she knew was

the windscreen coming in. She stated that she had been looking ahead along the

road and thought that a branch bad fallen from a tree and hit the car.

8.7.5 She stated that NUGENT did not brake prior to the windscreen smashing. She

stated that NUGENT then stopped the car and they both got out. She saw a girl

lying in the road and realized they had hit her.

8.7.6 She stated that she saw a Blackberry phone on the road near to the kerb in bits,

and she also saw some white headphones near to the girl’s head.

8.8 JAMIE-LEIGH BROOKS:

8.8.1 BROOKS is a 16 year old who was walking along Princess Drive at the time of the

collision. She is the only independent witness to the collision and states:

“I had passed the junction with Colwell Road and continued along Princess Drive, in the general direction of Page Moss. I was on the left-hand pavement, just past the bus stop. I recall hearing a car accelerating towards me; there wasn’t a lot of traffic about so it caught my attention. I turned back to look back across the junction and down the other side of Princess Drive. I recall seeing a silver car coming towards me. The noise was getting louder, it was the exhaust or the engine and it gave me the impression it was picking up speed. I can’t say how far away the silver car was when I first saw it, but it was near to the “Power Station” in Princess Drive. Although I had heard the car, I didn’t think that much of it at the time, as I turned back to look in the direction that I was walking. As I turned back I saw a girl, not too far from me on the other side of the grass verge, near to the road. I can’t remember what she was wearing. She then started to cross the road. She took three, maybe four steps out into the road. She got near to the centre white line when the same silver car that I had seen seconds before hit her. The girl went straight up in the air, about the height of two cars on top of each other, before falling straight back down and landing back in the road. Her feet were pointing towards me and her upper body was across the white line, pointing towards the other side of the road. She was lying on back with her arms and legs straight. The car stopped close to where the girl had fell. My dad is about 6ft

tall and I would say it was about the same distance away as that. I did not hear any change in sounds from the car to suggest it was slowing down or braking. I did not see the car from the time I turned back around until it hit the girl. I immediately got my phone and dialed for an ambulance. I could tell it was serious. I told the caller handler we were outside house number 429, which is exactly where the girl was lying. They told me to check the girl for a pulse, which I did. I stayed with her until other people came to help; this included a nurse, who was also calling 999. After a few minutes the caller handler said I could finish the call and go. As I left I continued to walk in the direction that I was originally heading. I passed the silver car which was still stopped in the middle of the road. I don’t recall if any of the car doors were open, but there was nobody in the car and the front was damaged. Although I saw the girl step into the road, I am unable to say which direction she had come from. Whilst providing this statement I have drawn a brief sketch to assist the officer, which I produce as JLB/1.”

9. OTHER EVIDENCE

9.1 There was no C.C.G.V. coverage of the collision.

9.2 Dr. Richard T. Shepherd is a registered Home Office Pathologist and has

performed a post mortem on the deceased. Within his report he states:

“ The injuries are entirely consistent with a road traffic collision with a primary impact to the right side of the body. Injury 16 is consistent with a ‘bumper’ injury.”

9.3 The result of the post Mortem for Katie BAKKER revealed that she died of

multiple injuries.

10. INVESTIGATION

10.1 Upon arrival I have carried out a forensic examination of the scene. I took a

number of digital images of the location and the vehicle involved. I later

downloaded these to C.D. I have selected a number of images that have been

made into albums that I produce as Ref CW2A, exhibit………………….

10.2 I carried out a topographical survey of the scene. From the information gathered,

plus further information I have added from the Ordinance Survey, I have

prepared scale plans of the scene which I produce as Ref CW4,

exhibit……….

11 OBSERVATIONS

11.1 The Ford Fiesta was seen prior to the collision by the witness, BROOKS. The

vehicle was travelling along the correct side of the road on the Southeast bound

carriageway, towards Liverpool Road.

11.2 The witness, MCFARLANE, stated she saw a person dressed all in black lying on

the floor. Such clothing could reduce the pedestrian’s visibility to the

approaching car driver.

11.3 The damage to the collision vehicle starts with cracks in the nearside front

bumper, and extends towards the centre of the front of the vehicle, and up the

bonnet towards the windscreen. There is damage to the windscreen and scuff

marks present on the roof. (As depicted in Photograph No’s 16, 17 and 18.) The

damage to the vehicle supports the fact that the pedestrian was crossing from

the driver’s left hand side. The witness BROOKS could not give a direction of

travel for the pedestrian although she witnessed the collision. BROOKS also

states that she witnessed the pedestrian take three, maybe four steps into the

road and was near to the centre white lane markings. This account is

inconsistent with the damage to the collision vehicle. A possible explanation for

the witness account is the angle at which BROOKS has seen the pedestrian enter

the road, from her own position.

11.4 When a motor vehicle strikes a pedestrian, and damage is caused to that vehicle,

debris falls from it. Therefore it is reasonable to use items of vehicle debris as

indicating where the collision occurred. In this case there were several items of

debris on the road surface that appear to have come from the collision vehicle.

Most of these were small items of black plastic of the type frequently used in

areas such as the front valance. However I cannot be certain

That these items of debris were actually from the collision vehicle. The first item

of debris that I am satisfied has come from the collision vehicle is the towing eye

cover. This item is a physical fit to the hole in the offside of the front bumper of

the collision vehicle.

11.5 Another item of debris was the small white soft plastic ear cover from a set of

headphones. The pedestrian’s mother stated that she left home with Katie, and

that she called her back but had to shout due to Katie having her headphones in.

Witnesses MCFARLANE and OWEN-SHINNAWEI also stated that they saw a set of

white headphones near to Katie when she was lying on the ground.

11.6 Calculations can be made to indicate the speed at which a vehicle was travelling

when it struck a pedestrian. In order to establish the speed of the vehicle it is

necessary to know the distance a pedestrian has been thrown on impact. In

order for a pedestrian throw calculation to be accurate the point of impact, and

the final resting position of the pedestrian are needed.

11.7 It is also necessary to eliminate the possibility that the pedestrian was carried

along by the vehicle. On examination of the collision vehicle I identified a

scuffmark on the roof on the nearside just above the windscreen. This is

consistent with the pedestrian travelling over the top of the vehicle. The witness,

BROOKS, also stated that she witnessed the pedestrian being thrown up into the

air above the vehicle and coming to a rest on the ground behind it. I am

therefore satisfied that the pedestrian was not carried along by the vehicle.

11.8 In this case I am satisfied that the final resting place is established by the

presence of the blood mark, and prior to this mark, the white fibres that have

come from the clothing.

11.9 Measuring from the towing eye cover to the point of rest of the pedestrian is

31.65 metres. It is reasonable therefore to assume that the pedestrian was

thrown at least this distance.

11.10 Extensive research has been conducted into determining a vehicle’s speed from

the pedestrian throw calculation. Although I am not fully trained in this area of

collision investigation. I have liaised with Constable 7986 RICHARDS who is a

qualified and experienced collision investigator. He advised me that the

circumstances of this collision match the criteria required to use Dr. John

SEARLE’s formula.

11.11 The pedestrian throw calculation determines the speed of the vehicle at the time

of the impact. This calculation gives a range of speeds at which the impact has

occurred because the distance that a pedestrian is thrown by a vehicle at any

given speed is dependent on the angle at which he/she has been launched. In

this case my calculations show that the speed was in the range 37-45 M.P.H. The

calculations are shown in the appendix.

12 SEQUENCE OF EVENTS

12.1 The pedestrian, Katie, left her home address in Burtree Road, walked to the end

of the road and turned right into Princess Drive. Her intention was to go to the

chip shop on Finch Road.

12.2 The driver of the Ford Fiesta, NUGENT, left his home address in Snowberry Road

and turned left into Princess Drive. He was driving his girlfriend home to an

address in Ormskirk.

12.3 As the pedestrian crossed the carriageway of Princess Drive the Ford Fiesta

struck her.

13. CONCLUSIONS

13.1 The Ford Fiesta was travelling along the correct side of the Southeast bound lane

of Princes Drive towards Liverpool Road.

13.2 The pedestrian was crossing the road from the driver’s nearside.

13.3 The pedestrian was wearing dark clothing.

13.4 There were no witnesses or physical evidence to show exactly where the

pedestrian was crossing the road.

13.5 The presence of the towing eye cover on the road supports the driver’s

explanation that the collision occurred near to the driveway where the vehicles

were parked.

13.6 the presence of the soft plastic ear cover from the headphones further indicates

that the collision occurred near to the driveway with the parked vehicles. This

again also lends support to the driver’s account.

13.7 Both the driver and his front seat passenger state they did not see the

pedestrian before the impact. The witness, BROOKS, however, states that she

saw the pedestrian on the other side of the grass verge from herself before the

collision.

13.8 On impact the pedestrian has been thrown into the air above the vehicle. The

vehicle has continued to travel along the carriageway underneath the

pedestrian, and she has come to rest on the ground behind.

13.9 Because Princess Drive is straight it could be expected that the pedestrian would

have a good view of traffic approaching from either direction. When looking

along Princess Drive in the direction from which the collision vehicle approached,

it is possible to see beyond the junction where the vehicle actually joined

Princess Drive. Katie BAKKER’s position in relation to the parked vehicles on the

driveway would be a possible explanation as to as to why she did not see the

vehicle approaching. I.E. they obstructed her view. It is also possible that if she

was wearing in ear headphones she was distracted and would not have heard

the vehicle approaching. Another explanation could be that she did in fact see

the vehicle approaching but misjudged its speed and distance from her.

13.10 The driver of the collision vehicle was travelling along a straight stretch of

Princess Drive. The visibility was good and the area was well lit. If the pedestrian

had been near to the road edge or indeed had stepped out, then it could be

expected that the driver should have seen her. In my opinion a possible reason

why he may not, would be that the pedestrian has walked along the driveway of

435 and 437 Princess Drive towards the road. If this was the case she could have

been masked from the driver’s view by the vehicles parked in the driveway at

that location. Likewise, if she has walked along the side of these vehicles nearest

to the approaching traffic, he may not have seen her due to her wearing dark

clothing. This could mean that there was a lack of contrast between her and the

background.

13.11 I have calculated the speed of the vehicle at the time of the impact to be

between 37-45M.P.H. the speed limit on Princess Drive is 30M.P.H. Therefore it

is my opinion that at the time of the collision the Ford Fiesta was travelling in

excess of the speed limit.

15 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

15.1 Dr John SEARLE, 1983.