Letter from the police
Discussion
Southerner said:
Blackpuddin said:
Do the police actually have the right to 'keep something on file'? Surely it's either a crime or it's not. This seems to be some new hybrid entity.
Are the police not perpetually breaking the law with their attitude to ‘keeping things on file’ anyway; I seem to recall they’ve been advised that their approach to DNA retention in the event of non-crimes is supposedly not legal but they decline to act on this?How long in law is a person required to be able to provide driver details for? Say the police find reason to take action against the OP for another driving issue in the future and this previous letter is dug up. Can they demand that the OP retrospectively identify who the driver was is this incident, seeing as they haven’t bothered asking at the time, in order to establish whether it should be considered in any action relating to something else at a later date?
The whole thing sounds legally dubious and a waste of everyone’s time, frankly. But if the police wish to involve themselves in sending threatening communications then the citizens whom they choose to target are entirely justified in responding.
Red Devil said:
Unless the OP received a S172 notice, there is no way the police can know that he was the driver. However it could be that with the vehicle details on file the OP runs the risk of S59 (which covers both the vehicle and whoever is driving it) coming into play going forward. Probably best to err on the side of caution for some time to come.
In this case I think that's definitely a point of contention. How can they say "don't do this again, or we might take action in future" when they don't know who was driving?In my case, the letter was addressed to Mrs Nibbles_bits, because they knew she was driving at the time.
They could take action against an unknown driver if this were related to S59, because as you've said, the warning is on the driver AND vehicle.
But the OP makes no mention of S59, which suggests it's not a S59 warning.
And for it to be S59 it MUST be both antisocial AND contrary to S3 or S34 RTA
CHLEMCBH said:
Given the length of time between the manoeuvre and the offence, I'm intrigued as to why you remember it so vividly or was there a still from the video on the letter?
It was four days, it was a car I don't drive often, and the location was specific, so not that hard......This seems a fair summary to me..
Busy body motorist doesn't like being overtaken so reports OP to the police and it seems to go something like this..
Busy body - 'A car did a naughty overtake on me, I'm not happy about it'
Police - OK, we'll contact them about it, is that Ok with you?'
Busy body - 'Yeh, thanks'
Police - send letter to OP alerting them to the issue, case now closed, Busy body happy, OP gets a letter that doesn't really mean anything.
However PH members demand blood - 'how dare the Busy body motorist complain, how dare the police send the OP a letter, and what does the letter mean anyway'?
It's all a bit irrelevant. The letter is the equivalent of the police witnessing the overtake, pulling him over and saying 'Be careful pal'. There's nothing more to it than that.
Busy body motorist doesn't like being overtaken so reports OP to the police and it seems to go something like this..
Busy body - 'A car did a naughty overtake on me, I'm not happy about it'
Police - OK, we'll contact them about it, is that Ok with you?'
Busy body - 'Yeh, thanks'
Police - send letter to OP alerting them to the issue, case now closed, Busy body happy, OP gets a letter that doesn't really mean anything.
However PH members demand blood - 'how dare the Busy body motorist complain, how dare the police send the OP a letter, and what does the letter mean anyway'?
It's all a bit irrelevant. The letter is the equivalent of the police witnessing the overtake, pulling him over and saying 'Be careful pal'. There's nothing more to it than that.
The Gauge said:
This seems a fair summary to me..
Busy body motorist doesn't like being overtaken so reports OP to the police and it seems to go something like this..
Busy body - 'A car did a naughty overtake on me, I'm not happy about it'
Police - OK, we'll contact them about it, is that Ok with you?'
Busy body - 'Yeh, thanks'
Police - send letter to OP alerting them to the issue, case now closed, Busy body happy, OP gets a letter that doesn't really mean anything.
However PH members demand blood - 'how dare the Busy body motorist complain, how dare the police send the OP a letter, and what does the letter mean anyway'?
It's all a bit irrelevant. The letter is the equivalent of the police witnessing the overtake, pulling him over and saying 'Be careful pal'. There's nothing more to it than that.
This is not the place for such thoughts. Busy body motorist doesn't like being overtaken so reports OP to the police and it seems to go something like this..
Busy body - 'A car did a naughty overtake on me, I'm not happy about it'
Police - OK, we'll contact them about it, is that Ok with you?'
Busy body - 'Yeh, thanks'
Police - send letter to OP alerting them to the issue, case now closed, Busy body happy, OP gets a letter that doesn't really mean anything.
However PH members demand blood - 'how dare the Busy body motorist complain, how dare the police send the OP a letter, and what does the letter mean anyway'?
It's all a bit irrelevant. The letter is the equivalent of the police witnessing the overtake, pulling him over and saying 'Be careful pal'. There's nothing more to it than that.
otolith said:
That.
But also;
Them keeping a record is no different to being stopped by a police car and then being let on your way, The cop might make a brief note of it in their pocket book and their books are kept for decades. Almost all recorded contact with the police is kept for ages and ages. And ages.But also;
Nibbles_bits said:
Fermit said:
No, but please feel free to point out to me at what point it is DWDC, or anyone was in the remotest bit in danger. Yesterday on the A616 I committed a similar overtake, someone dawdling, broken lined ghost island crossed. It was safe, it got me past Aunt Daisy, and no humans, babies or fluffy cats were in any danger whatsoever. Would I be pissed off to be snitched on and receive 6 points, damn right I would be. It's crap like this which contributes to confidence in the police being at an all time low.
The DWDC might be entering the hatched area unnecessarily. Edited by Fermit on Thursday 2nd May 18:38
Edited by Fermit on Thursday 2nd May 18:38
https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf
TSRGD Section 11, Part 4, Item 25 and 27.
The Gauge said:
otolith said:
That.
But also;
Them keeping a record is no different to being stopped by a police car and then being let on your way, The cop might make a brief note of it in their pocket book and their books are kept for decades. Almost all recorded contact with the police is kept for ages and ages. And ages.But also;
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Doesn't matter if it's necessary or not. It's permissible if the driver deems it safe to do so.
https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf
TSRGD Section 11, Part 4, Item 25 and 27.
Been told, doesn't acknowledge.https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf
TSRGD Section 11, Part 4, Item 25 and 27.
Random_Person said:
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Doesn't matter if it's necessary or not. It's permissible if the driver deems it safe to do so.
https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf
TSRGD Section 11, Part 4, Item 25 and 27.
Been told, doesn't acknowledge.https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf
TSRGD Section 11, Part 4, Item 25 and 27.
"Doesn't acknowledge", yet you're yet to offer anything that might be DWDC in either case??
Item 11, part 4, items 25 and 27 disprove your comment about the solid white line at the start of the markings.
Care to acknowledge?
Edited by Nibbles_bits on Friday 3rd May 13:51
The Gauge said:
This seems a fair summary to me..
Busy body motorist doesn't like being overtaken so reports OP to the police and it seems to go something like this..
Busy body - 'A car did a naughty overtake on me, I'm not happy about it'
Police - OK, we'll contact them about it, is that Ok with you?'
Busy body - 'Yeh, thanks'
Police - send letter to OP alerting them to the issue, case now closed, Busy body happy, OP gets a letter that doesn't really mean anything.
However PH members demand blood - 'how dare the Busy body motorist complain, how dare the police send the OP a letter, and what does the letter mean anyway'?
It's all a bit irrelevant. The letter is the equivalent of the police witnessing the overtake, pulling him over and saying 'Be careful pal'. There's nothing more to it than that.
Because it sounds like it should have gone:Busy body motorist doesn't like being overtaken so reports OP to the police and it seems to go something like this..
Busy body - 'A car did a naughty overtake on me, I'm not happy about it'
Police - OK, we'll contact them about it, is that Ok with you?'
Busy body - 'Yeh, thanks'
Police - send letter to OP alerting them to the issue, case now closed, Busy body happy, OP gets a letter that doesn't really mean anything.
However PH members demand blood - 'how dare the Busy body motorist complain, how dare the police send the OP a letter, and what does the letter mean anyway'?
It's all a bit irrelevant. The letter is the equivalent of the police witnessing the overtake, pulling him over and saying 'Be careful pal'. There's nothing more to it than that.
Busy body - 'A car did a naughty overtake on me, I'm not happy about it'
Police - 'That overtake looked fine. Don't waste our time again.'
Nibbles_bits said:
Random_Person said:
Rusty Old-Banger said:
Doesn't matter if it's necessary or not. It's permissible if the driver deems it safe to do so.
https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf
TSRGD Section 11, Part 4, Item 25 and 27.
Been told, doesn't acknowledge.https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf
TSRGD Section 11, Part 4, Item 25 and 27.
"Doesn't acknowledge", yet you're yet to offer anything that might be DWDC in either case??
Item 11, part 4, items 25 and 27 disprove your comment about the solid white line at the start of the markings.
Care to acknowledge?
Edited by Nibbles_bits on Friday 3rd May 13:51
Are you traffic Police?
Konrod said:
CHLEMCBH said:
Given the length of time between the manoeuvre and the offence, I'm intrigued as to why you remember it so vividly or was there a still from the video on the letter?
It was four days, it was a car I don't drive often, and the location was specific, so not that hard......Paul Dishman said:
This is a vid from the Devon & Cornwall Police DCW Operation Snap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqMcR19T4g
If you look at the overtake shown at 13 secs and again at 1min 45 secs you'll see an overtake across a hatched area which earned the overtaker a conviction for DWDCA and a driving course. To my mind that looked quick but safe, I can only think he was prosecuted for going over the solid white line at the start of the hatching so would have been ok if he'd entered the hatched area a couple of metres later.
It seems that the definition of DWDCA is fluid and a manoeuvre on the road may or not be considered for prosecution at the whim of an individual member of the Operation Snitch team.
In the OP's case I'd definitely write to the sender of his warning letter and request clarification of what criteria constitutes an offence of DWDCA and establish what justification they've got for accusing him of the offence, including the video evidence. A letter written in the spirit of wanting to learn a lesson would perhaps get a better response than an indignant letter.
Ultimately if one is blanked or ignored, the best course of action would be to submit a formal complaint, but if doing so insist that you will only communicate by letter or email, so that a formal record exists.
Can anyone explain exactly why the driver in this video was done for DWDCA, please? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlqMcR19T4g
If you look at the overtake shown at 13 secs and again at 1min 45 secs you'll see an overtake across a hatched area which earned the overtaker a conviction for DWDCA and a driving course. To my mind that looked quick but safe, I can only think he was prosecuted for going over the solid white line at the start of the hatching so would have been ok if he'd entered the hatched area a couple of metres later.
It seems that the definition of DWDCA is fluid and a manoeuvre on the road may or not be considered for prosecution at the whim of an individual member of the Operation Snitch team.
In the OP's case I'd definitely write to the sender of his warning letter and request clarification of what criteria constitutes an offence of DWDCA and establish what justification they've got for accusing him of the offence, including the video evidence. A letter written in the spirit of wanting to learn a lesson would perhaps get a better response than an indignant letter.
Ultimately if one is blanked or ignored, the best course of action would be to submit a formal complaint, but if doing so insist that you will only communicate by letter or email, so that a formal record exists.
pavarotti1980 said:
Random_Person said:
Been told, doesn't acknowledge.
What happens if the driver is not at the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver? Edited by pavarotti1980 on Friday 3rd May 16:28
And no, no idea why the block at 1.45 in the video above got "done" - there is nothing in the lining that indicates he contravened anything to warrant DWDCA. There is a 40mph repeater on the right hand side of the road, so he was clearly speeding, but that's not what the video says he was prosecuted for.
Nibbles_bits said:
So if the driver deems it's safe to do so, that's OK?
"Doesn't acknowledge", yet you're yet to offer anything that might be DWDC in either case??
Item 11, part 4, items 25 and 27 disprove your comment about the solid white line at the start of the markings.
Care to acknowledge?
As usual, and is is always the case, people are not reading the thread. I have already given a precis for why it would be considered DWDCA twice and it had more reason on there than just a solid white line. You wouldn't overtake there on a driving school exercise would you? If you have even done one, seriously starting to doubt it based on your posting."Doesn't acknowledge", yet you're yet to offer anything that might be DWDC in either case??
Item 11, part 4, items 25 and 27 disprove your comment about the solid white line at the start of the markings.
Care to acknowledge?
Edited by Nibbles_bits on Friday 3rd May 13:51
And it is nothing to do with the driver deeming it safe. It is about the fact you can cross the hatches when necessary - which includes an overtake.
Getting boring now anyway - as I have already said, I don't believe the driver received anything for that or that it is even a genuine incident. These videos are marketed and created for a reason - everyone is bickering over a penalty that may never have been issued.
Edited by Random_Person on Friday 3rd May 17:06
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff