3News » Home
Full Story

Speed camera in lay-by triggers fatal car crash

6 comments | Post Comment email Email printer friendly Print    Text Size:
aA
aA
aA
Photo: Waikato Times

Photo: Waikato Times

video
Fri, 22 Aug 2008 12:00a.m.

Jim Hitchcock is your typical Kiwi farming bloke.  He was a man who had never been in trouble with the law, until last October, when he drove into a car near Tirau and a 65-year-old man died.

Jim was not speeding.  He hadn't been drinking.  It was an accident.  But he was charged with careless driving causing death and injury.

He accepts that.

But farmers on the site where the accident happened say he is not the only one to blame.

A speed camera van was parked in a lay-by.

The car Jim hit wanted to use the lay-by to turn, but did not because the van was there, stopping in the middle of the road instead, which is where Jim hit it.

The farmers want the speed camera operator charged.  But police say he has done nothing wrong.

“I hope I don't cry... But it's been... it's been a killer... the kids that have been hurt... the damage... the person who lost their life.  I've stuffed a lot of people up,” Jim says.

Jim Hitchcock is a broken man.

On October 10th last year, he and his wife barb were returning to Rotorua, from Hamilton, driving along state highway one.

The weather was grim, but the mood relaxed.  It was about 4.30pm.  That is when he was momentarily distracted by a speed camera van on the side of the road.

“On the way to Hamilton we passed a speed camera van on the side of the road.  At the accident site and I remember saying to Barb my wife ‘what a boring life a speed camera operator man must have’,” Jim remembers.

Those were his last words to his wife before his world changed forever, and for one man, it ended.

“And a black car stopped.  There was a red van next to it.  I did half a second shimmy in my brain.  Where can I go?” tells Jim.

Jim had no where to go.  There was a car stationary in front of him, waiting to turn right.  Normally that would have waited in lay-by on the left.  But that was occupied by the speed camera.

Jim ended up shunting the black car into an oncoming vehicle.  A 65-year-old man was killed.  Neighbours say it should never have happened.

“I'm certain it wouldn't have happened if the speed camera wasn't there.  Kylie would have pulled off,” says neighbour Longview Farm Manager Bill Macky.

Kylie Roycroft was the driver of the black car.  It was her step dad that was killed.  Jim went to the rescue of her two young children, trapped in the wreck.

“I held her. You could see she was trying to move.  She had a broken leg.  I just held her. We bonded.  She didn't know who I was, or what I caused,” says Jim.

Three months later, Jim was charged with careless driving causing death and injury.

At his first court hearing he met the driver of the car he hit - Kylie Roycroft.

“She made some comment of I can't believe the police are chasing you.  There are a lot of people to blame in this. She was saying I should have gone ahead. The police camera shouldn't have been there,” says Jim.

The farmers at the site of the accident agree.  They are adamant the speed camera operator is also to blame.

“I would like to see him go thru the same process that Jim Hitchcock has gone through as being a major contributor to the accident.. Why is Jim being charged?  As far as we are concerned this accident would not have happened had he not been there,” says Alex Baldwin.

This is the issue. The speed camera parked here in the lay-by, which is public land.  But the lay-by was paid for by the Longview Farm’s trust, which is based across the road.  The trust says it is for residents and visitors, so they can pull in here and wait safely before crossing the highway into the farms main entrance.

The trust paid $8000 for the lay-by.  Kylie Roycroft always used it. Her partner worked at the farm.  But on that fateful day in October, she felt she could not.

“In her mind she came down the road, the lay-by has got the van in.  There was no room for me so she pulled to the middle of the road, which was something she normally didn't do, but because the van was there.  Did he have any right to be there? No.  Has he explained why he was there? No,” says Macky.

The speed camera operator turned up at the site a month after the accident, farmers asked him to leave.

But police say he has every right to be there.  It is public land. And have cleared him of any blame, saying there was plenty of room for Kylie Roycroft to pull up.

“The speed camera was parked legally.  It was parked appropriately.  It had been there two hours prior to the crash.  In fact the school bus had parked there without any difficulty.  So no I don't accept it's inappropriate,” says Inspector Kevin Taylor of the Bay of Plenty Police.

Another speed camera parked at the site last month, again farmers protested.

Police now say it won't turn up again.

“I have recently issued an instruction not to use that.  Not because we can't or shouldn't.  But because of the sensitivity to the trust.  There is no point using it if it is going to cause problems,” says Taylor.

As for Jim Hitchcock, he has just been sentenced.  He was disqualified from driving, fined 1000 dollars and ordered to pay nearly 6000 dollars in reparation to the children.  And, most importantly for him, he has made his peace with kylie.

“There is so many people affected.  I'm just so sorry for the mess I’ve created.  So from my heart I am sorry,” says Jim.

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Comments [6]

Chris
26 Aug 2008 7:58p.m.

As is usual with any accident, various people could have done things to prevent this ever happening.
1. The police could have not been so stupid as to park in a turning area.
2. Jim Hitchcock could have been aware that the speed camera van was distracting him from the vehicle ahead.
3. Kylie Roycroft could have noticed the speed camera van obstructing the turning area earlier, and slowed earlier to give the following car more time to notice her stopping. She could also have stopped with her wheels pointing forward so that any impact would shunt the car forward rather than right.
4. The car coming fromt he opposite direction could have seen the situation developing and braked (it is not reported if they did so or not).

But the point is that this tragic accident was entirely *initiated* by the speed camera van. Police officers are supposed to be professionals, they are supposed to understand road safety, and the fact that they parked in such a blatantly stupid place is clear evidence that they do not.
Or is it that they are so blinded with speed camera fanaticism that they are no longer capable of understanding road safety?

It is also appalling that despite this accident being caused by them, they had the arrogance to turn up again a month later. Good on the farmers for sending them packing.

The fact that no action is reported as having been taken against the police concerned is a disgrace. Senior police officers clearly do not understand the extent to which their failure to take such action will undermine respect for the police, and for the law, and thus further compromise road safety.

Hence it is not only the police in the van who are incompetent, but their superiors too.

homer
24 Aug 2008 8:19a.m.

As usual, cops looking after one of their own.

Tristan
23 Aug 2008 9:13p.m.

It is NOT a legal requirement "that when driving on open roads and you wish to turn right you must pull over to the left and only turn when the road is clear". you have a choice of either ways.

The legal requirement is basically you must not hit the vehicle in front of you, even if they come to a full stop.
This looks to be a simple case of driver inattention and/or following to close. It makes no difference if the camera van was there or not. Rural roads have far worse distractions/hazards than a van parked off the side of the road.
it doesn't matter if the van even completely blocked the lay-by. We often get it where the lay-by gets filled by traffic waiting to turn and the next turning vehicle has no choice but to stop in the lane making those in the bay wait even longer.

Its up to the driver to stop without hitting the car in front, which he failed to do and has been prosecuted for. If anything he got a very light sentence considering someone died.

But what really annoys me is the local community. instead of learning from this, they would rather blame something else other than the bad driving that caused it.
Much easier just to blame a camera van than to teach their community to drive correctly.

Matthew, Waitakere City
23 Aug 2008 4:45p.m.

The bloke that drove up the back of the car in front of him is the only one at fault. His actions caused the death of another person and deserved to go to jail. The fact that the speed camera van was parked in the lay-by is irrelevant, Someone died simply because the following driver wasn't paying attention.

alison
23 Aug 2008 4:26p.m.


i feel that this is a tragic accident and if anyone should be charged,it should be the traffic cop who was illegally parked on the layby.

John
22 Aug 2008 11:07p.m.

I find it rather stupid that this man was charged and convicted. The rode code clearly states that when driving on open roads and you wish to turn right you must pull over to the left and only turn when the road is clear. The car turning right in this case is in the wrong and they if anybody should have been charged they should have been.
To me this is purely an accident that unfortunately had a traggic outcome. What really has been gained by charging and convicting someone for this accident? The only thing is revenue for the goverment. The people involved have paid already with the memories being with them for the rest of their lives. Convicting and fining them isn't going to change what happened or ease the pain. In fact by chargin them it draws out the whole griefing process and makes it worse.
Surely our overworked police and court system has better things to do.Are Isn't their time better spent on real crimals instead of attacking innocent people that are involved an unfortunate accident.
I can understand if the driver had been speeding, drinking or on drugs but this appears to be a straight out accident.

Post a comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide here
Name:
Email: (Won't be published)
Comment:



3News Video 3News Audio

Post your opinion

3News - Was the force used at the Dotcom mansion excessive?
On January 20th, two helicopters and 76 police officers arrived a
Comments (189)