Visit to Police Station. Advice please...

[Greendubber]

Bigends said:

If there wasnt enough then why not do that ? Do you agree with the issue of a S59 in this case?

Being as I didn't deal I have no idea why it wasn't done like that. Maybe there was about 5 MG11's saying the OP was driving like a complete idiot and a sec 59 was used rather than send him to court for a fine and ban?

I can only speculate without knowing all the evidence.

[Greendubber]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Bigends was a frontline officer, would you believe?

I find some of his opinions a bit odd considering some of his claimed experience.

[Bigends]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Bigends was a frontline officer, would you believe?

I issued dozens of the things - worked on a rough estate for years - for the reason they were designed for - not as an easy resolution which seems to be the case here.

[Bigends]

Greendubber said:

I find some of his opinions a bit odd considering some of his claimed experience.

Ive explained before - been retired 10yrs now -just have a different view on things now. Back in the day it was a race to get the first one issued and we used them freely = for the right reasons. Now I - or my kids could be on the other end of one on the verbal say so of a third party so like to see theyre being used properly and not as easy way out by the officer dealing.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Bigends said:

I issued dozens of the things - worked on a rough estate for years - for the reason they were designed for - not as an easy resolution which seems to be the case here.

Then you would know that there are ALWAYS at least two sides to every story, and hence it would be unwise to say whether the actions taken were "lazy" or wrong. Were there, like GD suggested, numerous MG11's giving a different account of the OP's driving?

[Anonamoose]

benm3evo said:

Anonamoose said:

I don't mean to be funny but from reading your side if the incident you drove through the middle of a rememberence day parade?

I'm not surprised someone complained, they obviously thought you were incredibly disrespectful for doing so (even if you didn't mean to) they just saw some idiot in a car that couldn't wait.

I wouldn't take it that someone has it 'in for you or your car' just that someone or some people thought you were a disrespectful tt and therefore made a complaint, obviously a bit of embellishment to try and make sure you were taught a lesson.

The policeman probably agreed with them hence the S59.

You may be right, but...

Without anyone knowing the road this was on it was impossible to tell there was any type of parade going on. There was an initial small group of people in the road, I couldn't see around them before I was level with them...& even then I could only see a few more people walking up the road, nothing offical looking.

Obviously with hind sight (or a bloody sign!!) I would have simply turned around but I got to the 'point of no return' so had to wait for the next turning a few yards on before I could escape.

Cheers.

The business end of the Parade was another 100M down the road & I got nowhere near that.

I'm not saying it's right what happened, just that I can see how it happened. The road should have been closed or at least signs posted up in advance.

[Jasandjules]

Regardless of this thread, s59 is an offensive piece of legislation.

OP did you say the officer told you that he was told to deal with it by issuance of a S59?

[defblade]

I wasn't aware it was an offence to overtake a car (invisible or not!) with its hazards on. You might do so cautiously, but not sit behind it as it crawls along for the next 20 miles.

[Bigends]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Then you would know that there are ALWAYS at least two sides to every story, and hence it would be unwise to say whether the actions taken were "lazy" or wrong. Were there, like GD suggested, numerous MG11's giving a different account of the OP's driving?

I certainly never said it was lazy - just the easy way out giving the OP no right to reply. I still think issue of a S59 was inappropriate for a one -off incident. We only ever issued them after verbal warnings had failed - the incidents were all ASB related.

[Centurion07]

Bigends said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

Then you would know that there are ALWAYS at least two sides to every story, and hence it would be unwise to say whether the actions taken were "lazy" or wrong. Were there, like GD suggested, numerous MG11's giving a different account of the OP's driving?

I certainly never said it was lazy - just the easy way out giving the OP no right to reply. I still think issue of a S59 was inappropriate for a one -off incident. We only ever issued them after verbal warnings had failed - the incidents were all ASB related.

Thing is though, if we take the OP at face value and there's no reason not to, this isn't even an "incident"; he drove past, at just above walking pace, a crowd of pedestrians being followed by a non-existent car with it's hazard lights on, on a road that clearly had not been closed to other traffic.

What incident? Entering a road closed to traffic? No, not closed. Speeding? No, nobody complained he was going too fast. Illegally overtaking another car WITH IT'S HAZARD LIGHTS ON? No, the officer can't even decide if there was another car there or not. There is literally nothing in the OP's account to warrant an S59. In fact, if anything, the parade itself is the guilty party since they caused an obstruction without getting the road closed, and since there was no official police presence we can assume they either hadn't been notified or were not needed and the parade organisers were happy with that.

I'd be absolutely fking fuming if I was in OP's situation, not least because if somebody else decides to make up some bullst complaint as has happened already, then I could very well have my car taken off me!

OP, you might want to be seeking some proper legal advice about now, for all the good it will do given the nature of S59 legislation.

Edited by Centurion07 on Saturday 27th December 17:36

[turbobloke]

Bigends said:

Mk3Spitfire said:

Then you would know that there are ALWAYS at least two sides to every story, and hence it would be unwise to say whether the actions taken were "lazy" or wrong. Were there, like GD suggested, numerous MG11's giving a different account of the OP's driving?

I certainly never said it was lazy - just the easy way out giving the OP no right to reply. I still think issue of a S59 was inappropriate for a one -off incident. We only ever issued them after verbal warnings had failed - the incidents were all ASB related.

That's what makes for a suspicion that somebody influential involved with the parade had a word somewhere. If this was a first offence, why not administer a word of warning, though what the warning would be in a case of inadvertent parade penetration is anyone's guess. Particularly as the officer dealing appears to have used their nose to come to the view that the OP wasn't the type of person to abuse such a parade deliberately.

[turbobloke]

Centurion07 said:

I'd be absolutely fking fuming if I was in OP's situation, not least because if somebody else decides to make up some bullst complaint as has happened already, then I could very well have my car taken off me!

There's almost certainly a lot of this type of low level motoring injustice around these days, not least as there was enough already before S59 came along. Back in the day when my voluntary work involved support (not legal advice, IANAL) for drivers caught up in similar situations there were issues with NIPs. Like an elderly couple who received a NIP for a speeding offence committed on their return from a holiday. Their description of events made it clear they'd done due diligence and simply could not confirm who was driving at the time they were zapped. Listening and sympathising was fine, suggesting they seek legal advice in the circumstances was pointless, they were too scared and the old boy 'admitted' the offence just to see an end to the stress they felt. Another similar case went all the way to Court before the case was dropped, keeping pressure (and stress) on until the last minute. Now self-incrimination under duress has done its job we've reached the situation where police are accuser, judge and jury with the only consolation being that some BiB appear to accept that this situation is far from ideal.

A related PH thread:

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=1&a...

[Dixy]

There is a time limit for a NIP is there nothing for a S59. As so much time had elapsed was any other option closed to BIB. So if the OP had done as so many were condemned for suggesting and said not coming and no comment how would it have been worse.

[Bigends]

Dixy said:

There is a time limit for a NIP is there nothing for a S59. As so much time had elapsed was any other option closed to BIB. So if the OP had done as so many were condemned for suggesting and said not coming and no comment how would it have been worse.

Probably/possibly why the S59 was issued as Police dragged their feet getting an NIP sent out

Edited by Bigends on Saturday 27th December 18:38

[Zoobeef]

Funk said:

Not if you save it to your PC it isn't...

It's realising you've had an issue or an incident. You could quite easily class something as a non event and it come back and bite you.

[Funk]

Zoobeef said:

Funk said:

Not if you save it to your PC it isn't...

It's realising you've had an issue or an incident. You could quite easily class something as a non event and it come back and bite you.

I sync mine every couple of days (32Gb card) using SyncToy to update new videos for a month (I figure that anything the needs contesting would have been notified to me within 4 weeks or so?).

You're right as at 1280p resolution, the dashcam will fill the SD card with around 3-4 hours of driving (I usually have about 45-60 mins of driving per day on my commute).

[Clivey]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Then you would know that there are ALWAYS at least two sides to every story, and hence it would be unwise to say whether the actions taken were "lazy" or wrong. Were there, like GD suggested, numerous MG11's giving a different account of the OP's driving?

As we only have the OP's side to go on, we can only comment as if that's what's happened. These threads would be pretty short if we call BS on anything the OP says...besides, the OP wouldn't be doing themselves any favours if they were asking for advice based on a scenario that didn't happen.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Clivey said:

As we only have the OP's side to go on, we can only comment as if that's what's happened. These threads would be pretty short if we call BS on anything the OP says...besides, the OP wouldn't be doing themselves any favours if they were asking for advice based on a scenario that didn't happen.

It would also be unwise to assume everything posted is a true and accurate account of what happened. People sometimes like to be told that they were not in the wrong and may leave out certain details to make that seem more likely. People often also do not realise certain things which may make a big impact on the outcome of a scenario.

[Clivey]

Mk3Spitfire said:

People sometimes like to be told that they were not in the wrong and may leave out certain details to make that seem more likely. People often also do not realise certain things which may make a big impact on the outcome of a scenario.

Of course...but if they want to kid themselves on, that's up to them.

If, in this case, I were the OP and telling the truth, I'd not be able to let this one lie. How is a S59 supposed to influence the driver's behaviour if the Officer can't even tell him exactly what it was that he did wrong?

[Bigends]

OP never received an NIP so prosecution for driving offences would be out of the window. Damage limitation by officer dealing - 'weve served him with papers which mean he cant do anything wrong in a car for the next year'. March organiser is happy - not so the OP