A POLICE officer giving evidence at an inquest into a Redhill biker's death was questioned over her investigation of an accident which occurred in the same place the day before.
Lee Friend was killed on February 21, 2013, when his motorbike collided with a BMW on the A217 Dovers Green Road. The father of the three was just 200 metres from his work.
There were temporary traffic lights and roadworks just after a blind bend on the 50mph road at the time of the incident.
PC Sharon Bignall attended a separate collision at the same location the day before.
In her second day in the witness box at Woking Coroner's Court, she told the court how she had come across a three-car shunt at the lights on February 20.
In her assessment of the scene, she wrote in the force's Accident Record Book (ARB) that she could not eliminate the position the lights, roadworks signs and the blind bend as contributing factors to the collision.
The court also heard how she tried to call Surrey County Council, the highways authority, that evening to request an expert to take a look at the road layout, but no one picked up the phone.
It also heard PC Bignall finished filling in the ARB the day after the incident, and after hearing about Lee Friend's tragic crash.
During cross-examination, PC Bignall was accused of "manipulating" her witness statement, which is a criminal offence.
Mr Woodhouse, the legal representative for Sutton and East Surrey Water, which was carrying out the roadworks, suggested she raised concern about the position of the traffic lights on the blind bend and insufficient signage only after hearing of the circumstances of Mr Friend's collision.
He said: "You filled it out in that way because you were concerned your competence was going to be called into question over your investigation of the incident."
PC Bignall denied the claim, saying the vague details she knew of the incident involving Mr Friend did not influence her report of the previous accident, where she had identified a "slight risk" in the road layout.
"There was a likelihood of a shunt happening again, there was an elevated risk," she said.
"The lights did not seem to cause any immediate danger. If I thought it was urgent I would have closed the road myself there and then.
"I did not think it was warranted at that time for an emergency call to highways to come out and deal with the lights."
Mr Woodhouse asked PC Bignall if she saw a roadworks sign with a contact number for the water company.
PC Bignall said it was "not visible" to her, adding: "If the board had been in place where I could see it, I would have phoned the number."
Mr Woodhouse argued: "The sign was there but you didn't look for it because you did not think it necessary to contact the person carrying out the roadworks".
PC Bignall replied she tried to contact the council about her concerns.
Mr Mooney, representing the family, asked PC Bignall about her assessment of the risk the lights caused, having noted in the ARB the car involved in the shunt had impacted at 35mph.
He said: "Do you agree if a HGV driver or a motorcyclist had collided with a line of stationary traffic at 35mph, the consequences would have been far more serious? Had you done a proper assessment, you would have thought of the risk of a serious accident."
She replied: "I was observing and there was no problem with vehicles coming up to the lights, I saw no cause for concern in my observations."
The inquest continues.
