0-30 Flat out acceleration. Due Care And Attention?
Discussion
BertBert said:
I just can't believe the baying hounds of PH are falling for this. We have a second hand report of what's going on. We have no idea what the offence actually is. The OP has said that "excessive speed" was mentioned. Then that was leaped on to mean exceeding the speed limit.
So please OP can you furnish us with some facts? What offence is this person being "done" for and offered a course in place of?
Bert
Since when did people on PH need any facts before they get their knickers in a twist?So please OP can you furnish us with some facts? What offence is this person being "done" for and offered a course in place of?
Bert
A whole thread of based on what the mate of the OP told him.
Pointless, IMHO of course.
BertBert said:
I just can't believe the baying hounds of PH are falling for this. We have a second hand report of what's going on. We have no idea what the offence actually is. The OP has said that "excessive speed" was mentioned. Then that was leaped on to mean exceeding the speed limit.
So please OP can you furnish us with some facts? What offence is this person being "done" for and offered a course in place of?
Bert
Can't exactly get all the facts. Have taken what colleague has told me and passed it on to the forum as a point of voyeurism for us all, a point of discussion and also in the hope I can get a bit of useful advice to pass on to the young lad.So please OP can you furnish us with some facts? What offence is this person being "done" for and offered a course in place of?
Bert
What I can gather the facts of the matter are.
1. He left a shop, jumped into his car and accelerated flat out to the rev limiter in first gear then popped it into fourth and carried on at 30. (I know he drives like this as I've had the misfortune to sit passenger to him on the lunchtime sandwich run. Jerky, accelerates hard, holds low gears (bit of an arse) but is good about not speeding in town.
2. Behind, in the distance, was a Police Van. The BiBs within witnessed said stunt, pursued my colleague and lit him up.
3. Police initially accused him of travelling in excess of 50mph.
4. Colleague denied this saying he had done all the accelerating in 1st gear and his car doesn't go that fast.
5. Police say "we didn't say you were doing 50 but we had to do 50+ to catch you"
6. Police lecture then focuses on the dangers of hard acceleration "you could veer off in any direction", "the noise of your car could frighten a pedestrian", "what if someone saw you stationary and thought it was safe to pull out/ step out and all of a sudden there's a car there doing 30" "you pulled away so fast we thought you'd robbed the shop (they really said that)".
7. Police inform driver he is guilty of driving with out care and attention to other road users.
8. Colleague receives letter saying that sufficient evidence is available to prosecute him for "Without Due Care" namely that he drove at an excessive (unspecified) speed in a built up area. Prosecution will be waved should he cough up 190 notes and attend the course.
streaky said:
The evidence of two police officers that the vehicle was being driven in excess of the speed limit will usually suffice in court.
Streaky
Amazing how they need no evidence, all they need do is lie. My bet though is a clever barrister would get them to contradict each other. Traffic cops are hardly the brightest.Streaky
They have already changed from acceleration to speed. Chances are by the time it came to court they will have forgotten. I would definitely seek legal advice, better than a big fee and listening to some dick head for a day and a bit. Just my 2 penceworth
10 Pence Short said:
It isn't 'no evidence', it's evidence from two Police Officers. Courts can and do convict people on the word of others without relying on prescribed measuring devices, y'know!
Including utterly partial and distinctly inexpert witness testimony from Doris in the 43mph Agila..vodkalolly said:
They have already changed from acceleration to speed. Chances are by the time it came to court they will have forgotten.
Or it could just be that the OPs friend has changed his story or has not been entirely honest.Who knows, but either way getting worked up and drawing grand conclusions based on a story from a second hand source of unknown reliability is pointless.
Devil2575 said:
vodkalolly said:
They have already changed from acceleration to speed. Chances are by the time it came to court they will have forgotten.
Or it could just be that the OPs friend has changed his story or has not been entirely honest.Who knows, but either way getting worked up and drawing grand conclusions based on a story from a second hand source of unknown reliability is pointless.
If he had been speeding why not charge him with speeding?
What they say is that the offence is that his speed was excessive hence "Due Care" is the issue. The excessive speed is not specified. At no point in his letter does it mention a figure at which he was travelling. Does that mean that he might not have been exceeding the speed limit but was travelling too fast for the conditions (eg 30mph past a school as the kids come out with school run mums parked on both sides of the road and a car's width of space between them down the middle would constitute an offence).
That being the case is doing 25mph a nanosecond after being stationary travelling at an excessive speed?
Also bear in mind this isn't Traffic but two beat bobbies in a big chugaboom van. Would Traffic have handled it differently.
In Italy I once get fined for "guida pericolosa" (dangerous driving) just for very brisk acceleration at lights. It was 12-13 years ago but I still recall it well.
It was in city but being a dual carriage road the limit was 70kph / 44mph. After shifting to 2nd slowed down immediately as the turbo was surging the forward the car but a urban police car (vigili urbani) that I hadn't noted on my left overtook me and stopped me. Perhaps I started with a bit of tire spin but nothing otrageous.
Probably the fact I was just 18 and I was driving a yellow Delta Integrale I "borrowed" from my dad wasn't helpful but I still think it wasn't a fair ticket.
It was in city but being a dual carriage road the limit was 70kph / 44mph. After shifting to 2nd slowed down immediately as the turbo was surging the forward the car but a urban police car (vigili urbani) that I hadn't noted on my left overtook me and stopped me. Perhaps I started with a bit of tire spin but nothing otrageous.
Probably the fact I was just 18 and I was driving a yellow Delta Integrale I "borrowed" from my dad wasn't helpful but I still think it wasn't a fair ticket.
10 Pence Short said:
streaky said:
The evidence of two police officers that the vehicle was being driven in excess of the speed limit will usually suffice in court.
Streaky
Not for careless in this case, it won't. We probably don't have all the facts of this case, but on the info we do have here I'd turn the offer down, as I believe they're trying it on.Streaky
Streaky
Tannedbaldhead said:
8. Colleague receives letter saying that sufficient evidence is available to prosecute him for "Without Due Care" namely that he drove at an excessive (unspecified) speed in a built up area. Prosecution will be waved should he cough up 190 notes and attend the course.
Thanks for the summary, but you need to help us a bit more in this fantasy situation. So not enough evidence for a prosecution, but prosecution will be waived if he goes on a course?Clearly not a correct account of the facts. What charge will be waived by going on a course? If it's the charge that there is not evidence for them tell them to do one. If it's another charge tell us and we can comment about how strong the case looks.
BTW if you read plod's comments, don't you have a teensy-weansy voice whispering they might just have a point?
Bert
vodkalolly said:
streaky said:
The evidence of two police officers that the vehicle was being driven in excess of the speed limit will usually suffice in court.
Streaky
Amazing how they need no evidence, all they need do is lie. My bet though is a clever barrister would get them to contradict each other. Traffic cops are hardly the brightest.Streaky
Streaky
streaky said:
vodkalolly said:
streaky said:
The evidence of two police officers that the vehicle was being driven in excess of the speed limit will usually suffice in court.
Streaky
Amazing how they need no evidence, all they need do is lie. My bet though is a clever barrister would get them to contradict each other. Traffic cops are hardly the brightest.Streaky
Streaky
Devil2575 said:
vodkalolly said:
They have already changed from acceleration to speed. Chances are by the time it came to court they will have forgotten.
Or it could just be that the OPs friend has changed his story or has not been entirely honest.Who knows, but either way getting worked up and drawing grand conclusions based on a story from a second hand source of unknown reliability is pointless.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff