"Offical Warning" from the Police
Discussion
Greendubber said:
I suspect someone isn't telling the truth, it's either you or your family member.
Or the police of course.There's plenty of recent examples in the news of police being caught out telling fibs. I can't believe this only just started with body worn cameras and mobile phones becoming common.
Whilst milkround gave us all an good demonstration of why not accepting a caution can be a bad idea, I can also believe a first hand account of a person being told by a copper they have no choice but to accept something.
Especially 20 years ago when the internet was for geeks and most people just accepted what they were told by the police.
Ian Geary said:
Greendubber said:
I suspect someone isn't telling the truth, it's either you or your family member.
Or the police of course.There's plenty of recent examples in the news of police being caught out telling fibs. I can't believe this only just started with body worn cameras and mobile phones becoming common.
Whilst milkround gave us all an good demonstration of why not accepting a caution can be a bad idea, I can also believe a first hand account of a person being told by a copper they have no choice but to accept something.
Especially 20 years ago when the internet was for geeks and most people just accepted what they were told by the police.
So, I finally have an update.
It's a shame it's taken a number emails to be told this information, when perhaps it would be beneficial to include it in the letter.
They aren't interested in the 3rd vehicle as a contributing factor, because the attending Officer didn't include it in their report.
"The circumstances as recorded are that “V1 travelling eastbound in moving traffic has collided with the rear of V2”. The driver of V1 has failed to stop in the distance they can see to be clear.
The circumstances amount to careless driving and the written warning disposal is a proportionate outcome in the circumstances.
It is now a matter for insurance companies to resolve."
"The warning letter is part of the CRaSH record, if the driver is involved in another at fault collision within the next 12 months we would take this into consideration when deciding on a disposal outcome.
The CRaSH record is automatically deleted after 6 years in line with the Management of Police Information."
So my takeaway from this is -
1 - V2's account is taken as fact.
2 - V1 and V2's accounts that V2 may have already been stationary is interpretered as being "moving traffic".
3 - It’s not clear how a CRaSH report is used in my force.
4 - as per a previous post, thank you Vaden Saab, some forces are more diligent in the information they provide the recipient of such letters.
5 - it's still not clear where CRaSH reports are stored, or how they would be accessible to me, as Police Officer, in an investigation.
6 - I clearly have some knowledge gaps, and their are learning opportunities for both myself and my organisation.
It's a shame it's taken a number emails to be told this information, when perhaps it would be beneficial to include it in the letter.
They aren't interested in the 3rd vehicle as a contributing factor, because the attending Officer didn't include it in their report.
"The circumstances as recorded are that “V1 travelling eastbound in moving traffic has collided with the rear of V2”. The driver of V1 has failed to stop in the distance they can see to be clear.
The circumstances amount to careless driving and the written warning disposal is a proportionate outcome in the circumstances.
It is now a matter for insurance companies to resolve."
"The warning letter is part of the CRaSH record, if the driver is involved in another at fault collision within the next 12 months we would take this into consideration when deciding on a disposal outcome.
The CRaSH record is automatically deleted after 6 years in line with the Management of Police Information."
So my takeaway from this is -
1 - V2's account is taken as fact.
2 - V1 and V2's accounts that V2 may have already been stationary is interpretered as being "moving traffic".
3 - It’s not clear how a CRaSH report is used in my force.
4 - as per a previous post, thank you Vaden Saab, some forces are more diligent in the information they provide the recipient of such letters.
5 - it's still not clear where CRaSH reports are stored, or how they would be accessible to me, as Police Officer, in an investigation.
6 - I clearly have some knowledge gaps, and their are learning opportunities for both myself and my organisation.
I would think if your duties involved handling and investigating RTC's, you'd know how to access it etc...
It does leave a question, was the officer told about V3 at the time?,
It may be necessary to complain if you as a passenger (so far as I can recall) witnessed them being told, as you would not want an incident within 12 months (say jumping into a gap on roundabout when car in front pulled forward and braked whilst she's looking right, only to see & rear end it as she looks ahead on accelerating into roundabout thinking they'd gone etc..) to make it appear she's utterly careless on the highway and end up dealt with "harshly" without deserving to be..
It does leave a question, was the officer told about V3 at the time?,
It may be necessary to complain if you as a passenger (so far as I can recall) witnessed them being told, as you would not want an incident within 12 months (say jumping into a gap on roundabout when car in front pulled forward and braked whilst she's looking right, only to see & rear end it as she looks ahead on accelerating into roundabout thinking they'd gone etc..) to make it appear she's utterly careless on the highway and end up dealt with "harshly" without deserving to be..
Edited by NFT on Wednesday 15th November 00:59
NFT said:
I would think if your duties involved handling and investigating RTC's, you'd know how to access it etc...
It does leave a question, was the officer told about V3 at the time?,
It may be necessary to complain if you as a passenger (so far as I can recall) witnessed them being told, as you would not want an incident within 12 months (say jumping into a gap on roundabout when car in front pulled forward and braked whilst she's looking right, only to see & rear end it as she looks ahead on accelerating into roundabout thinking they'd gone etc..) to make it appear she's utterly careless on the highway and end up dealt with "harshly" without deserving to be..
You'd think they'd tell us wouldn't you........but that appears to be information reserved only for the prestigious Collisions Unit (and I'd imagine RPU), and not your bog standard.It does leave a question, was the officer told about V3 at the time?,
It may be necessary to complain if you as a passenger (so far as I can recall) witnessed them being told, as you would not want an incident within 12 months (say jumping into a gap on roundabout when car in front pulled forward and braked whilst she's looking right, only to see & rear end it as she looks ahead on accelerating into roundabout thinking they'd gone etc..) to make it appear she's utterly careless on the highway and end up dealt with "harshly" without deserving to be..
Edited by NFT on Wednesday 15th November 00:59
I didn't witness the driver of V2 tell the Officer, but my wife and I both told the Officer that's what V2 told us immediately after the collision, yet appears not to have been recorded.
This incident potentially being used in a future, perhaps in the situation you've described, has been one of my concerns.
Yes, for insurance purposes my wife is at fault. But in regards to the circumstances of the collision, based on what V2 told us, she not completely to blame.
V2 *could* have just braked or slowed unnecessarily, which may also be driving without due care and attention.
V3 (if it existed) - changing lanes without any indication or care. Also without due care.
I don't think any of the circumstances of the other vehicles change the conclusion as provided. Your wife couldn't stop within the distance she could see was clear and on that basis she was driving without due care.
The fact that any other circumstances aren't recorded isn't material. It doesn't matter why there was something that got hit.
The fact that any other circumstances aren't recorded isn't material. It doesn't matter why there was something that got hit.
BertBert said:
I don't think any of the circumstances of the other vehicles change the conclusion as provided. Your wife couldn't stop within the distance she could see was clear and on that basis she was driving without due care.
The fact that any other circumstances aren't recorded isn't material. It doesn't matter why there was something that got hit.
That statement isn't a given - if it were then anyone who was a victim of a "crash for cash" scam would be guilty of DWDC.The fact that any other circumstances aren't recorded isn't material. It doesn't matter why there was something that got hit.
Mr Pointy said:
BertBert said:
I don't think any of the circumstances of the other vehicles change the conclusion as provided. Your wife couldn't stop within the distance she could see was clear and on that basis she was driving without due care.
The fact that any other circumstances aren't recorded isn't material. It doesn't matter why there was something that got hit.
That statement isn't a given - if it were then anyone who was a victim of a "crash for cash" scam would be guilty of DWDC.The fact that any other circumstances aren't recorded isn't material. It doesn't matter why there was something that got hit.
There doesn't appear to be any investigation into V3 and it's not mentioned in the report.
Nibbles_bits said:
So, I finally have an update.
It's a shame it's taken a number emails to be told this information, when perhaps it would be beneficial to include it in the letter.
They aren't interested in the 3rd vehicle as a contributing factor, because the attending Officer didn't include it in their report.
"The circumstances as recorded are that “V1 travelling eastbound in moving traffic has collided with the rear of V2”. The driver of V1 has failed to stop in the distance they can see to be clear.
The circumstances amount to careless driving and the written warning disposal is a proportionate outcome in the circumstances.
It is now a matter for insurance companies to resolve."
"The warning letter is part of the CRaSH record, if the driver is involved in another at fault collision within the next 12 months we would take this into consideration when deciding on a disposal outcome.
The CRaSH record is automatically deleted after 6 years in line with the Management of Police Information."
So my takeaway from this is -
1 - V2's account is taken as fact.
2 - V1 and V2's accounts that V2 may have already been stationary is interpretered as being "moving traffic".
3 - It’s not clear how a CRaSH report is used in my force.
4 - as per a previous post, thank you Vaden Saab, some forces are more diligent in the information they provide the recipient of such letters.
5 - it's still not clear where CRaSH reports are stored, or how they would be accessible to me, as Police Officer, in an investigation.
6 - I clearly have some knowledge gaps, and their are learning opportunities for both myself and my organisation.
Not sure who would have access to the CRaSH database. Is it confined to your force only? Is it a national system? What circumstances would cause a search to be carried out? Even a S59 lasts only a year - a driver could have one of these CRaSH reports hanging over their heads for years.It's a shame it's taken a number emails to be told this information, when perhaps it would be beneficial to include it in the letter.
They aren't interested in the 3rd vehicle as a contributing factor, because the attending Officer didn't include it in their report.
"The circumstances as recorded are that “V1 travelling eastbound in moving traffic has collided with the rear of V2”. The driver of V1 has failed to stop in the distance they can see to be clear.
The circumstances amount to careless driving and the written warning disposal is a proportionate outcome in the circumstances.
It is now a matter for insurance companies to resolve."
"The warning letter is part of the CRaSH record, if the driver is involved in another at fault collision within the next 12 months we would take this into consideration when deciding on a disposal outcome.
The CRaSH record is automatically deleted after 6 years in line with the Management of Police Information."
So my takeaway from this is -
1 - V2's account is taken as fact.
2 - V1 and V2's accounts that V2 may have already been stationary is interpretered as being "moving traffic".
3 - It’s not clear how a CRaSH report is used in my force.
4 - as per a previous post, thank you Vaden Saab, some forces are more diligent in the information they provide the recipient of such letters.
5 - it's still not clear where CRaSH reports are stored, or how they would be accessible to me, as Police Officer, in an investigation.
6 - I clearly have some knowledge gaps, and their are learning opportunities for both myself and my organisation.
Bigends said:
Not sure who would have access to the CRaSH database. Is it confined to your force only? Is it a national system? What circumstances would cause a search to be carried out? Even a S59 lasts only a year - a driver could have one of these CRaSH reports hanging over their heads for years.
Apparently it's a national thing.Offences that are investigated by the Collision Team and those not dealt with at the roadside by Roads Policing (?), would be my guess.
In my role, I can investigate any traffic offence, bar offences death or serious injury. And yet, I have no knowledge on how to search CRaSH for previous warnings.
Once I complete a CRaSH report at the roadside, I can't later view or amend it.
It's only held on "file" for 12 months. But clearly my force, unlike with a S59, don't think you need to be told this at the time of it being issued.
Nibbles_bits said:
And as it appears that there's no proof V3 existed, how can anyone be sure V2 didn't deliberately cause the collision?
There doesn't appear to be any investigation into V3 and it's not mentioned in the report.
Well you don't think that V2 caused the collision deliberately do you? Plod investigating don't think so either, so why is that a possibility?There doesn't appear to be any investigation into V3 and it's not mentioned in the report.
Nibbles_bits said:
Bigends said:
Not sure who would have access to the CRaSH database. Is it confined to your force only? Is it a national system? What circumstances would cause a search to be carried out? Even a S59 lasts only a year - a driver could have one of these CRaSH reports hanging over their heads for years.
Apparently it's a national thing.Offences that are investigated by the Collision Team and those not dealt with at the roadside by Roads Policing (?), would be my guess.
In my role, I can investigate any traffic offence, bar offences death or serious injury. And yet, I have no knowledge on how to search CRaSH for previous warnings.
Once I complete a CRaSH report at the roadside, I can't later view or amend it.
It's only held on "file" for 12 months. But clearly my force, unlike with a S59, don't think you need to be told this at the time of it being issued.
I don't think it would be recorded on Pentip -
PentiP is a cross-criminal justice platform used by all police forces in England, Scotland and Wales. It records and processes Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) and Conditional Offers for vehicle based offences, such as speeding and red-light offences. It is also used for low level anti-social behaviour offence warnings and FPNs issued under the Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) Scheme.
But as I've not been told, maybe it is??
CRaSH (Collision Recording and Sharing) data recording and management solution. This is one of the first national IT solutions implemented by Police Scotland, which is also used by over half of the police forces in England and Wales. The system is owned by the Department for Transport, and further information is available on the CRaSH website.
Before the introduction of CRaSH provision of STATS19 data (see below) was reliant on collating data from a number of different legacy Force IT systems. Due to differences in data structure and recording practices or processes, these data do not have the same level of consistency as that available from CRaSH. However, RTC data (designated as national statistics) for the period before 2020 are published on the Department for Transport website.
PentiP is a cross-criminal justice platform used by all police forces in England, Scotland and Wales. It records and processes Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) and Conditional Offers for vehicle based offences, such as speeding and red-light offences. It is also used for low level anti-social behaviour offence warnings and FPNs issued under the Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) Scheme.
But as I've not been told, maybe it is??
CRaSH (Collision Recording and Sharing) data recording and management solution. This is one of the first national IT solutions implemented by Police Scotland, which is also used by over half of the police forces in England and Wales. The system is owned by the Department for Transport, and further information is available on the CRaSH website.
Before the introduction of CRaSH provision of STATS19 data (see below) was reliant on collating data from a number of different legacy Force IT systems. Due to differences in data structure and recording practices or processes, these data do not have the same level of consistency as that available from CRaSH. However, RTC data (designated as national statistics) for the period before 2020 are published on the Department for Transport website.
Nibbles_bits said:
I don't think it would be recorded on Pentip -
PentiP is a cross-criminal justice platform used by all police forces in England, Scotland and Wales. It records and processes Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) and Conditional Offers for vehicle based offences, such as speeding and red-light offences. It is also used for low level anti-social behaviour offence warnings and FPNs issued under the Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) Scheme.
But as I've not been told, maybe it is??
CRaSH (Collision Recording and Sharing) data recording and management solution. This is one of the first national IT solutions implemented by Police Scotland, which is also used by over half of the police forces in England and Wales. The system is owned by the Department for Transport, and further information is available on the CRaSH website.
Before the introduction of CRaSH provision of STATS19 data (see below) was reliant on collating data from a number of different legacy Force IT systems. Due to differences in data structure and recording practices or processes, these data do not have the same level of consistency as that available from CRaSH. However, RTC data (designated as national statistics) for the period before 2020 are published on the Department for Transport website.
Looks like CRaSH records injury only accidents unless ive misread the online BumphPentiP is a cross-criminal justice platform used by all police forces in England, Scotland and Wales. It records and processes Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) and Conditional Offers for vehicle based offences, such as speeding and red-light offences. It is also used for low level anti-social behaviour offence warnings and FPNs issued under the Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) Scheme.
But as I've not been told, maybe it is??
CRaSH (Collision Recording and Sharing) data recording and management solution. This is one of the first national IT solutions implemented by Police Scotland, which is also used by over half of the police forces in England and Wales. The system is owned by the Department for Transport, and further information is available on the CRaSH website.
Before the introduction of CRaSH provision of STATS19 data (see below) was reliant on collating data from a number of different legacy Force IT systems. Due to differences in data structure and recording practices or processes, these data do not have the same level of consistency as that available from CRaSH. However, RTC data (designated as national statistics) for the period before 2020 are published on the Department for Transport website.
Contributory Codes -
403 Poor turn or manoeuvre
Applies to any manoeuvre performed by the driver/rider which caused, or contributed to, the
accident. Examples include reversing, turning left, right or U-turn, changing lanes or overtaking.
Also include poor vehicle positioning (eg. in middle of road, in wrong lane at junction or encroaching
into bus/cycle lane).
409 Swerved
Use when swerving is a definite decision on the part of the driver to change direction suddenly.
Do not use this code simply to record that a vehicle swerved if this did not cause, or contribute to,
the accident
Appear to apply to V3.
403 Poor turn or manoeuvre
Applies to any manoeuvre performed by the driver/rider which caused, or contributed to, the
accident. Examples include reversing, turning left, right or U-turn, changing lanes or overtaking.
Also include poor vehicle positioning (eg. in middle of road, in wrong lane at junction or encroaching
into bus/cycle lane).
409 Swerved
Use when swerving is a definite decision on the part of the driver to change direction suddenly.
Do not use this code simply to record that a vehicle swerved if this did not cause, or contribute to,
the accident
Appear to apply to V3.
BertBert said:
Nibbles_bits said:
And as it appears that there's no proof V3 existed, how can anyone be sure V2 didn't deliberately cause the collision?
There doesn't appear to be any investigation into V3 and it's not mentioned in the report.
Well you don't think that V2 caused the collision deliberately do you? Plod investigating don't think so either, so why is that a possibility?There doesn't appear to be any investigation into V3 and it's not mentioned in the report.
Considering your earlier comment - it's also possible that the investigation hasn't been completed to a satisfactory standard.
Nibbles_bits said:
Now that there doesn't appear to be any mention of V3......I do think it's a possibility that V2 caused the collision deliberately.
Considering your earlier comment - it's also possible that the investigation hasn't been completed to a satisfactory standard.
If you thought they caused the crash deliberately why didnt you say that at the time?Considering your earlier comment - it's also possible that the investigation hasn't been completed to a satisfactory standard.
You only seem to have come to that conclusion after receiving a letter, that was pretty irrelevant
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff