Just been stopped for dangerous driving....

[croyde]

My own stupidity, stopped by an unmarked car on the A2 heading out of London just past the end of that nightmare 30mph average speed zone.

The two guys were very polite and so was I and they said that they had observed me sticking to 30 mph throughout the average speed zone but then going up to 70mph as soon as it ended and had become a 50mph zone policed by gatsos.

I doubt I did 70 as I was stuck in traffic and the guy in front was resolutely sticking to 40 in the outside lane. They said that I tailgated him, which again I don't think I was doing, and then undertook him, which I did do.

As soon as I undertook the blue lights came on and we both pulled off the A2 onto a side road.

One officer chatted to me by the side of the road and admired my car whilst the other sat in his car and did paperwork. He then told me that I was being done for dangerous driving which would probably end up as careless driving.

He would go back to the station and type up his report and then hand it over to the traffic division who would decide on whether to prosecute or not. He finished his chat with saying that there was no evidence and that in the end it was his word against mine.

I was a bit puzzled that he told me this and now that I am home, that I have not been given any paperwork although he asked me to sign his report.

Considering this is quite a serious offence, shouldn't I have at least a reference number?

Can anyone shed any light on this and the possible outcome. Thanks.

[Andy Meads]

I'd suggest you seek competent legal advice before doing or saying anything more.

Whilst I am not a traffic law specialist, the above approach will never make matters worse. But doing the opposite might.

Andy

[AndrewEH1]

croyde said:

He would go back to the station and type up his report and then hand it over to the traffic division who would decide on whether to prosecute or not. He finished his chat with saying that there was no evidence and that in the end it was his word against mine.

This bit sounds a little odd...Police don't decide whether to prosecute they only gather the evidence.

Were they actually Police?

[agtlaw]

AndrewEH1 said:

croyde said:

He would go back to the station and type up his report and then hand it over to the traffic division who would decide on whether to prosecute or not. He finished his chat with saying that there was no evidence and that in the end it was his word against mine.

This bit sounds a little odd...Police don't decide whether to prosecute they only gather the evidence.

Were they actually Police?

It doesn't. Wrong.

Yes, they were.

[AndrewEH1]

agtlaw said:

It doesn't. Wrong.

Yes, they were.

I was joking with the not Police.

Surely he'll get a NIP in the post rather than 'traffic division' deciding whether to prosecute? The whole no evidence things strikes me as odd, I have no idea why they would say that...

Either way until the letter drops through the door there's not much OP can do but wait and go to a lawyer for advice if/when it arrives.

Edited by AndrewEH1 on Saturday 27th February 00:22

[agtlaw]

AndrewEH1 said:

I was joking with the not Police.

Surely he'll get a NIP in the post rather than 'traffic division' deciding whether to prosecute? The whole no evidence things strikes me as odd, I have no idea why they would say that...

Either way until the letter drops through the door there's not much OP can do but wait and go to a lawyer for advice.

Very unlikely to get an NIP in the post as there's no requirement to send one.

Not much a solicitor can do at this stage. Perhaps a letter to the police regarding the charging decision.

[Defconluke]

Could you have come needlessly close to a car in the lane to your left when you moved to that lane? - If the opinion of the officers in the unmarked car was that you were tailgating the car in front then perhaps they thought you moved across too soon also?
Were you going above the posted speed limit when you undertook the car in the outside lane?

[croyde]

I'm really puzzled by the officer's no evidence parting line.

Should I have been cautioned at the roadside? as I wasn't.

[herewego]

I expect he meant that they didn't have a camera running. Statements from either or both officers is evidence.

[akirk]

Look up the regs on dangerous driving, there are only certain criteria that count, careless driving is much broader

[chazwind]

From what you've described, a charge of Driving Without Due Care and Attention is certainly on the cards. Dangerous Driving is a much more serious offence, and the threshold for conviction is correspondingly high. This may apply if you were driving aggressively, and were putting other road users at serious risk.

[baldy1926]

The met report all traffic offences now via a process book. The officer can when he submits the book recommend what action he would like to happen. It then wings its slow and painful way off to the traffic process office for them to do their best or worst

[Dr Jekyll]

Is it right that if someone is charged with dangerous driving, the courts can acquit of that but still convict of careless? In which case there is no point in not going for dangerous in the first place.

[chazwind]

Dr Jekyll said:

Is it right that if someone is charged with dangerous driving, the courts can acquit of that but still convict of careless? In which case there is no point in not going for dangerous in the first place.

Only very few cases actually get to court; most are settled before then. Dangerous Driving is difficult to prove, and only worth pursuing if there's a realistic chance of conviction.

[agtlaw]

Dr Jekyll said:

Is it right that if someone is charged with dangerous driving, the courts can acquit of that but still convict of careless? In which case there is no point in not going for dangerous in the first place.

Not in a magistrates' court. In the crown court, depends if the judge so directs the jury.

[George111]

croyde said:

Considering this is quite a serious offence, shouldn't I have at least a reference number?

Can anyone shed any light on this and the possible outcome. Thanks.

It's not that serious, you won't be convicted with dangerous driving unless you were really dangerous. Look at the definition of 'dangerous' on the CPS or Court (I think it was there ?) website. I was charged with this years ago, chose to go to court because copper didn't tell the truth and I really was innocent. In court the magistrates heard him verbally contradict his own written evidence but whatever happened I was was still going to get a fine because it was his word against mine and they can't say he's not telling the truth. Got a CD10 (careless) in the end with a small fine and contribution to costs. Insurance company regarded it like a SP30 and didn't increase premium.

The magistrates don't really understand the law and probably aren't even that interested in it tbh, it was just a nice way to have a bit of a go back at a liar, I was never going to win but if we don't put up some resistance it will get worse.

If you do get a summons, it might take 4-5 months for you to get it, but it's only an invitation to have a chat in court, treat it as such. Take your check book and see the clerk on the way out, very easy.

[EV11NED]

Similar thing happened to me. Stopped by a trafpol, lectured, told he would give me a call for me to make a statement. Never called and right on the cusp of 6 months later I got a summons.

Engaged a lawyer as the trafpols evidence was contradictory (and wrong), lawyer was able to talk the CPS into withdrawing the most serious charge, got a CD10 and 3 points (minimum penalty) as to go for full acquittal would have been more costly and risky, and magistrates generally aren't going to call the trafpol a lying (which he was). I accepted this as I had more important things to worry about at the time.

Two cars insured, insurance company didn't care, premium not affected as they take number of points and fine into account now not just conviction code.

OP, you undertook, which is illegal (whilst understandable given what you described). Think it'll be a CD10, 3 points and small fine. But do get expert representation if you go to court.

[agtlaw]

If they go for careless driving (far more likely than dangerous driving) then OP could avoid court proceedings if offered a driver improvement course or a fixed penalty.

[George111]

EV11NED said:

Engaged a lawyer as the trafpols evidence was contradictory (and wrong), lawyer was able to talk the CPS into withdrawing the most serious charge, got a CD10 and 3 points (minimum penalty) as to go for full acquittal would have been more costly and risky, and magistrates generally aren't going to call the trafpol a lying (which he was). I accepted this as I had more important things to worry about at the time.

Amazing how similar . . . they do lie ! I didn't use a Solicitor as I knew that whatever happened I'd be found guilty anyway so saved myself £1500 or whatever it would have cost.

[croyde]

Thanks for the replies people. So what is the ball park cost of a solicitor if it goes to court.