Dangerous Driving - am I going to get it?
Discussion
Last night, quite wet, three lane right 90-degree bend off a traffic light at which I'm at the front of the middle lane. No one else around so I'm unable to resist doing a little drift as I pull off and take the right. Nothing too major - a little first gear tail wiggle. As I'm correcting and sliding round I see a policeman next to his car parked up on the side of the road. He promptly runs out in front of my car starts screaming and basically I'm screwed...
Long story short 1-hour session got breathalized etc - in the end he told me that I would be getting prosecuted for dangerous driving, asked me whether I understood the offence and after I said yes got me to sign the piece of paper.
He drove off leaving me with only an insurance producer.
So I'm completely confused - I know I screwed up and I'll take what's coming to me - but I need to know what's going to happen. I've been told they need to leave you some paperwork if they're going to prosecute you for dangerous driving. Is this true? Since they only gave me the producer, and nothing to do with the offence. Also - can they really do you for dangerous driving for a tiny wriggle of the back end? They have no proof, and the car wasn't even out of control, though obviously I can't say that in court since I'll be admitting dangerous driving on purpose.
Not really sure what to do - I've never had points before and I won't be able to insure my car if I get any so I would really appreciate any advice you guys have for me. I've also learnt my lesson about drifting on public roads, so if anyone feels like telling me off more I don't mind, but it's not necessary.
Long story short 1-hour session got breathalized etc - in the end he told me that I would be getting prosecuted for dangerous driving, asked me whether I understood the offence and after I said yes got me to sign the piece of paper.
He drove off leaving me with only an insurance producer.
So I'm completely confused - I know I screwed up and I'll take what's coming to me - but I need to know what's going to happen. I've been told they need to leave you some paperwork if they're going to prosecute you for dangerous driving. Is this true? Since they only gave me the producer, and nothing to do with the offence. Also - can they really do you for dangerous driving for a tiny wriggle of the back end? They have no proof, and the car wasn't even out of control, though obviously I can't say that in court since I'll be admitting dangerous driving on purpose.
Not really sure what to do - I've never had points before and I won't be able to insure my car if I get any so I would really appreciate any advice you guys have for me. I've also learnt my lesson about drifting on public roads, so if anyone feels like telling me off more I don't mind, but it's not necessary.
Would he have given you a Verbal NIP thus negating the need for a bit of paper?
Reported for consideration of the charge of dangerous driving or similar?
DD is a court job so I wouldnt have expected a ticket as such.
One copper, no traffic, wet road, no incident.
I would be suprised if the CPS ran with it TBH.
Reported for consideration of the charge of dangerous driving or similar?
DD is a court job so I wouldnt have expected a ticket as such.
One copper, no traffic, wet road, no incident.
I would be suprised if the CPS ran with it TBH.
As there was no accident he would have had to have verbally NIP'd you. "I am reporting you for consideration of the question of prosicuting you for dangerous driving" or similar.
A producer is by the by just making sure you are insured and the car has a valid MOT ticket etc.
Dangerous driving is where the standard falls far below that expected of a carefull and compitant driver. The question is would a carefull and compitant driver have driven in the same manor as you did? and if they wouldent how far below the standard as dangerous is far below and careless is just falls below the standard expected.
1 Police officer can bring the offence to court, its a relatively quick file to prepare for the officer. The CPS may or maynot run with the offence who knows its a gamble and depends on what CPS lawyer the officer goes to see.
What did you actually say to him, did you admit anything, did you get cautioned?
(sorry for poor spelling today)
Gareth
Edited to add: they dont need to leave you with any paperwork, if you are going to court the first you will hear is a summons.
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Tuesday 25th October 13:45
A producer is by the by just making sure you are insured and the car has a valid MOT ticket etc.
Dangerous driving is where the standard falls far below that expected of a carefull and compitant driver. The question is would a carefull and compitant driver have driven in the same manor as you did? and if they wouldent how far below the standard as dangerous is far below and careless is just falls below the standard expected.
1 Police officer can bring the offence to court, its a relatively quick file to prepare for the officer. The CPS may or maynot run with the offence who knows its a gamble and depends on what CPS lawyer the officer goes to see.
What did you actually say to him, did you admit anything, did you get cautioned?
(sorry for poor spelling today)
Gareth
Edited to add: they dont need to leave you with any paperwork, if you are going to court the first you will hear is a summons.
>> Edited by ^Slider^ on Tuesday 25th October 13:45
If you get a summons for DD and there was no accident, or incident, or another vehicle placed in danger, then get a solicitor and plead 'not guilty'. Then your solicitor can use the plea bargain that if the CPS want to go for DD then you'll fight it all the way to appeal, but if they drop it to Due Care and Attention, which it possibly was, you'll plead guilty with the mitigation that the road was unexpectedly slippery. Then it'll be a fine and 3 points (probably).
With only one police officer and no damage or wreckage it's unlkely the CPS will want to fight it out right up to appeal.
With only one police officer and no damage or wreckage it's unlkely the CPS will want to fight it out right up to appeal.
Agreed.
I wouldnt have thought it was a very strong case unless you have admitted dangerous driving or attempting to slide, or similar.
If you have you are ****ed.
Otherwise, it would be very difficult to prove the case, for example you can say that the car aquaplaned completely unexpectedly and you were struggling to keep control of the car. There is also the fact that on bends near petrol stations, when dielsel gets spilt it can make such conditions tretcherous. I spun my M3 on a wet day on a roundabout exit to a petrol station with adverse camber doing no more than 15mph!!!
The PC and thus the CPS will have no proof of your intentions, even less what pedals you were pressing, and most likely the first the PC saw of your car (an important point) is probably you 'recovering' from the slide, not going into it.
A six point dangerous driving will rocket your insurance (double?) for the next five years. I would think very carefully about the financial consequences when thinking about scrimping on the solicitors costs.
I wouldnt have thought it was a very strong case unless you have admitted dangerous driving or attempting to slide, or similar.
If you have you are ****ed.
Otherwise, it would be very difficult to prove the case, for example you can say that the car aquaplaned completely unexpectedly and you were struggling to keep control of the car. There is also the fact that on bends near petrol stations, when dielsel gets spilt it can make such conditions tretcherous. I spun my M3 on a wet day on a roundabout exit to a petrol station with adverse camber doing no more than 15mph!!!
The PC and thus the CPS will have no proof of your intentions, even less what pedals you were pressing, and most likely the first the PC saw of your car (an important point) is probably you 'recovering' from the slide, not going into it.
A six point dangerous driving will rocket your insurance (double?) for the next five years. I would think very carefully about the financial consequences when thinking about scrimping on the solicitors costs.
As Justin has said, the PC has no evidence as to how slippery the road was. So, you did very well and used your advanced driver training to 'steer into to the incipient skid' and prevent any danger to yourself or anyone else when confronted by an unexpectedly slippery condition, probably caused by a localised diesel spill.
Prove otherwise, Mr.CPS, you're innocent until proven otherwise and skid control is part of skilled driver abilities. The fact that you controlled an unexpected skid without any crash and without spinning shows how safe you are.
To be really on top, you could go on one of those skid control courses to 'further enhance your skid control ability' in light of this incident. That would sound good in court. Just a thought.
If it did go to court, you could find an expert rally driver as an expert witness to counter the allegation that a little bit sideways is in any way dangerous for a skilled driver.
Do all this, or threaten the CPS that you'll do all this, and they are 90% likely to back off.
Prove otherwise, Mr.CPS, you're innocent until proven otherwise and skid control is part of skilled driver abilities. The fact that you controlled an unexpected skid without any crash and without spinning shows how safe you are.
To be really on top, you could go on one of those skid control courses to 'further enhance your skid control ability' in light of this incident. That would sound good in court. Just a thought.
If it did go to court, you could find an expert rally driver as an expert witness to counter the allegation that a little bit sideways is in any way dangerous for a skilled driver.
Do all this, or threaten the CPS that you'll do all this, and they are 90% likely to back off.
Cooperman said:
As Justin has said, the PC has no evidence as to how slippery the road was. So, you did very well and used your advanced driver training to 'steer into to the incipient skid' and prevent any danger to yourself or anyone else when confronted by an unexpectedly slippery condition, probably caused by a localised diesel spill.
Prove otherwise, Mr.CPS, you're innocent until proven otherwise and skid control is part of skilled driver abilities. The fact that you controlled an unexpected skid without any crash and without spinning shows how safe you are.
To be really on top, you could go on one of those skid control courses to 'further enhance your skid control ability' in light of this incident. That would sound good in court. Just a thought.
If it did go to court, you could find an expert rally driver as an expert witness to counter the allegation that a little bit sideways is in any way dangerous for a skilled driver.
Do all this, or threaten the CPS that you'll do all this, and they are 90% likely to back off.
Yup, what Cooperman said!
I doubt you'll here any more about this, once the officer has calmed down! Dangerous Driving? No way they can prove that. Admittedly, spinning the wheels of your car is going to be much more spectacular than in my Chim, but I've lost count of the number of times I've had the rear wheels spinning and I don't see that as dangerous in any way.
Thank you all for your help - looks like in the worst case scenario I'm going to have to wait for the letter to come through and then find myself the best solicitor I can.
I didn't admit anything, though I was a bit shocked and hadn't worked out what the best thing to say was so I kept on mumbling I'm not sure what happened and it was wet etc. I only signed that I understood the offence for which I would be prosecuted - so hopefully that's not admitting anything either.
By the time the policeman saw me I was already controlling the skid, but I don't know whether that's how it will be presented to the court. I'm guessing the best story is that I drove off quite swiftly because it was quiet, the road was for some reason more slippery than usual and the car went into a slide, which luckily the DSC saved and so I was in a state of shock when I got pulled over, having nearly had an accident and not sure of what was going on and what I had done wrong.
Not sure if I should mention skid training or advanced driver training though - wouldn't they use that as an excuse to persuade the court that I did it on purpose as opposed to being accidental?
P.S. As it happens it was by a petrol station and I was in a new M5 - what is it with m-power and wanting to go sideways?
I didn't admit anything, though I was a bit shocked and hadn't worked out what the best thing to say was so I kept on mumbling I'm not sure what happened and it was wet etc. I only signed that I understood the offence for which I would be prosecuted - so hopefully that's not admitting anything either.
By the time the policeman saw me I was already controlling the skid, but I don't know whether that's how it will be presented to the court. I'm guessing the best story is that I drove off quite swiftly because it was quiet, the road was for some reason more slippery than usual and the car went into a slide, which luckily the DSC saved and so I was in a state of shock when I got pulled over, having nearly had an accident and not sure of what was going on and what I had done wrong.
Not sure if I should mention skid training or advanced driver training though - wouldn't they use that as an excuse to persuade the court that I did it on purpose as opposed to being accidental?
P.S. As it happens it was by a petrol station and I was in a new M5 - what is it with m-power and wanting to go sideways?
tonto said:
I doubt you'll here any more about this, once the officer has calmed down! Dangerous Driving? No way they can prove that. Admittedly, spinning the wheels of your car is going to be much more spectacular than in my Chim, but I've lost count of the number of times I've had the rear wheels spinning and I don't see that as dangerous in any way.
Ah if only it was in the FQ - there was so much space and visibility on the corner that I would have been considerably more sideways and in rather more serious trouble!
It was in the M5 so a little bit less spectacular than your Chimaera
It really was a tiny wiggle which snapped right back the second I spotted the policeman!Personally I wouldn't say "I drove off qiuiclly as it was quiet. I'd say that "I drove off normally making reasonable progress, the rear wheels lost adhesion due to a probably diesel spillage in the middle of the corner, the car started to skid sideways and I correctred it using the proper method of lifting off the power and steering into the skid. This straightened it out because the correct car control technique was used properly and there was no danger to anyone, in spite of the diesel spillage being hidden by the wet road surface".
Your solicitor can ask the police officer whether any other road user was put in danger and whether you controlled the unexpected skid properly to avoid any collision.
He can ask Mr. Plod:
"Did my client lose control of the vehicle and have it spin to be facing in the opposite direction?"
"Did my client hit the kerb on the neaside?"
Did my client hit the kerb or central reservation or the traffic light on the offside?"
"Did my client cause any other vehicle to have to swerve, brake or take violent avioding action?"
"Did you check the see whether you could see the localised diesel spillage, or would that have been difficult to do in with the wet road surface?"
Did my client stop safely and easily when signalled to do so?"
The answers to these questions will prevent a DD conviction and if they persisted with DD they would almost certainly lose. They would, however, be likely to accept a 'Due Care and Attention' guilty plea on condition you plead guilty. That's if it gets that far.
Your solicitor can ask the police officer whether any other road user was put in danger and whether you controlled the unexpected skid properly to avoid any collision.
He can ask Mr. Plod:
"Did my client lose control of the vehicle and have it spin to be facing in the opposite direction?"
"Did my client hit the kerb on the neaside?"
Did my client hit the kerb or central reservation or the traffic light on the offside?"
"Did my client cause any other vehicle to have to swerve, brake or take violent avioding action?"
"Did you check the see whether you could see the localised diesel spillage, or would that have been difficult to do in with the wet road surface?"
Did my client stop safely and easily when signalled to do so?"
The answers to these questions will prevent a DD conviction and if they persisted with DD they would almost certainly lose. They would, however, be likely to accept a 'Due Care and Attention' guilty plea on condition you plead guilty. That's if it gets that far.
Cooperman said:
Personally I wouldn't say "I drove off qiuiclly as it was quiet. I'd say that "I drove off normally making reasonable progress, the rear wheels lost adhesion due to a probably diesel spillage in the middle of the corner, the car started to skid sideways and I correctred it using the proper method of lifting off the power and steering into the skid. This straightened it out because the correct car control technique was used properly and there was no danger to anyone, in spite of the diesel spillage being hidden by the wet road surface".
Your solicitor can ask the police officer whether any other road user was put in danger and whether you controlled the unexpected skid properly to avoid any collision.
He can ask Mr. Plod:
"Did my client lose control of the vehicle and have it spin to be facing in the opposite direction?"
"Did my client hit the kerb on the neaside?"
Did my client hit the kerb or central reservation or the traffic light on the offside?"
"Did my client cause any other vehicle to have to swerve, brake or take violent avioding action?"
"Did you check the see whether you could see the localised diesel spillage, or would that have been difficult to do in with the wet road surface?"
Did my client stop safely and easily when signalled to do so?"
The answers to these questions will prevent a DD conviction and if they persisted with DD they would almost certainly lose. They would, however, be likely to accept a 'Due Care and Attention' guilty plea on condition you plead guilty. That's if it gets that far.
I agree but why would you plead guilty to 'Due care and attention' if you could go to court and win against a DD charge?
A few years back, I fought 'due care and attention' after somersaulting my car over a hedge.
I realised that the insurance company had covered me for legal costs, so what did I have to lose ?
I employed the best specialist solicitor and won the case - 'case dismissed'.
Nothing on my licence
No effect on insurance (apart from the claim).
Nothing to pay.
I don't think your case will go that far though.
The courts would be filled with chavs.
I realised that the insurance company had covered me for legal costs, so what did I have to lose ?
I employed the best specialist solicitor and won the case - 'case dismissed'.
Nothing on my licence
No effect on insurance (apart from the claim).
Nothing to pay.
I don't think your case will go that far though.
The courts would be filled with chavs.
I agree with Coopermans line of questioning.
I have defended myself in court sucessfully, and cross examined three corroborating police officers who wrongly accused me of running a red light.
I some of them must think:
Young guy + nice car = t*at
Lets do him. Three expert statments against one... Ha ha ha...
Basically, the way forward is to once you get the statement go over it with a fine tooth comb (dont mind helping with this if you scan me a copy). Get your story straight first. You line of questioning should always support the theory that your theory is true, and you can rubbish the PCs version of events and support your own at the same time if you are clever. The best way is to plan four or five following questions in a row which you know the witness will answer your way, which will line you up for the killer question.
For example:
Would you say you had a good knowledge of the performance of vehicles in all conditions?
(Must say yes to support his own testimony)
Do you know the benefits and the effect of DSC or anti-skid control has on a car?
(basic explanation, again does not want to appear clueless)
When you saw my car on the 9th October this year, did you think the movements of my car were consistant with onw which has such anti-skid or DSC working?
(Of course not! or Err, maybe... dunno)
Well, I must say that I was surprised as you when it happened!
When you examined the road surface at the junction, what did you discover?
(Either- it had standing water, or 'Errr, I didnt examine the road')
Oh... after the incident I was so surprised about what had happened I telephoned the car dealership and they explained that this can be a common problem near petrol stations due to spilt diesel. I went back to the scene the next day, at a quiet time, I could see the refraction patterns in the standing water which shows there was either petrol or diesel on the road.
How far would you say the junction is to the BP petrol station?
(200metres)
Would you say it would be possible that as my friend explained that some diesel could have been spilt at this corner?
(Either 'dont think so' - how do you know when you ahve already testified you did not examine the scene!?
or a reluctant, 'Yes')
Are you aware of the affect that spilt diesel may have of the affect of traction on a rear whell drive vehicle?
(It will lose traction)
In your experience is their any tell tale signs that a motorist can look out for if theor may be spilt petrol or diesel in the road?
(Of course not...)
Game over.
Thats the way I would go about it anyway.
Furthermore I would not go the way of a plea bargain either, if you support your case like this, you have been in an unfortunate situation and done that best you could do, in fact you handled the car in such a way where you saved causing an accident.
I have defended myself in court sucessfully, and cross examined three corroborating police officers who wrongly accused me of running a red light.
I some of them must think:
Young guy + nice car = t*at
Lets do him. Three expert statments against one... Ha ha ha...
Basically, the way forward is to once you get the statement go over it with a fine tooth comb (dont mind helping with this if you scan me a copy). Get your story straight first. You line of questioning should always support the theory that your theory is true, and you can rubbish the PCs version of events and support your own at the same time if you are clever. The best way is to plan four or five following questions in a row which you know the witness will answer your way, which will line you up for the killer question.
For example:
Would you say you had a good knowledge of the performance of vehicles in all conditions?
(Must say yes to support his own testimony)
Do you know the benefits and the effect of DSC or anti-skid control has on a car?
(basic explanation, again does not want to appear clueless)
When you saw my car on the 9th October this year, did you think the movements of my car were consistant with onw which has such anti-skid or DSC working?
(Of course not! or Err, maybe... dunno)
Well, I must say that I was surprised as you when it happened!
When you examined the road surface at the junction, what did you discover?
(Either- it had standing water, or 'Errr, I didnt examine the road')
Oh... after the incident I was so surprised about what had happened I telephoned the car dealership and they explained that this can be a common problem near petrol stations due to spilt diesel. I went back to the scene the next day, at a quiet time, I could see the refraction patterns in the standing water which shows there was either petrol or diesel on the road.
How far would you say the junction is to the BP petrol station?
(200metres)
Would you say it would be possible that as my friend explained that some diesel could have been spilt at this corner?
(Either 'dont think so' - how do you know when you ahve already testified you did not examine the scene!?
or a reluctant, 'Yes')
Are you aware of the affect that spilt diesel may have of the affect of traction on a rear whell drive vehicle?
(It will lose traction)
In your experience is their any tell tale signs that a motorist can look out for if theor may be spilt petrol or diesel in the road?
(Of course not...)
Game over.
Thats the way I would go about it anyway.
Furthermore I would not go the way of a plea bargain either, if you support your case like this, you have been in an unfortunate situation and done that best you could do, in fact you handled the car in such a way where you saved causing an accident.
Not wishing to put too much of a downer on things, but Sec 2 dangerous driving usually results in 12 months off the road followed by an extended retest.
From what you've said it sounds a bit weak for Sec 2.
Perhaps the Bib has a different perception of things.
I'd be getting some decent representation, as the differences in penalty between sec 2 and sec 3 RTA could be quite significant.
From what you've said it sounds a bit weak for Sec 2.
Perhaps the Bib has a different perception of things.
I'd be getting some decent representation, as the differences in penalty between sec 2 and sec 3 RTA could be quite significant.
justinp1 said:
In your experience is their any tell tale signs that a motorist can look out for if there may be spilt petrol or diesel in the road?
(Of course not...)
[PythonesqueBikerMode]
Er, the characteristic rainbow hue.
OK, apart from the characteristic rainbow hue
Er, the sweet smell.
OK, apart from the characteristic rainbow hue and the sweet smell.... In your experience is their any tell tale signs that a motorist can look out for if there may be spilt petrol or diesel in the road?
[/PythonesqueBikerMode]
justinp1 said:
Furthermore I would not go the way of a plea bargain either, if you support your case like this, you have been in an unfortunate situation and done that best you could do, in fact you handled the car in such a way where you saved causing an accident.
So you're telling him to lie under oath then? The first thing he said was that he DID cause the car to slide ON PURPOSE. I'm not passing comment on that, i wasn't there. Done it myself plenty of times so i'm not passing judgement on him. But he nevertheless stated that he did it. At least he has been honest. Many subsequent replies have basically told him to lie under oath. Let's give fellow motorists good advice by all means, but let's not tell people to just blatantly lie...
In fact he doesn't need to lie to use this line of defence - unless he takes the stand and declares a false situation.
Most of the questions have been about cross-examination of the main prosecution witness who did not obviously check traction on that corner. The implication of whether the skid was deliberate or otherwise, of whether there may have been or may not have been diesel, of whether any careful driver might have experienced a skid at that point on the road -- these are issues which might cast reasonable doubt on a charge of dangerous driving.
That is the defendent's prerogative.
The point is that the evidence presented might also apply to a situation where the driving was not dangerous -- in which case there must be reasonable doubt as to whether it was dangerous driving.
Most of the questions have been about cross-examination of the main prosecution witness who did not obviously check traction on that corner. The implication of whether the skid was deliberate or otherwise, of whether there may have been or may not have been diesel, of whether any careful driver might have experienced a skid at that point on the road -- these are issues which might cast reasonable doubt on a charge of dangerous driving.
That is the defendent's prerogative.
The point is that the evidence presented might also apply to a situation where the driving was not dangerous -- in which case there must be reasonable doubt as to whether it was dangerous driving.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff