Can this be proven as Dangerous driving?
Discussion
A mate of mine is in panic. He was going for a spin in his car on an A road, 70mph speed limit and believes to have been driving over 100 mph but cannot be 100% sure of this. In the meantime he notices police sirens very far back in his rear view mirror, so far that they looked like a tiny dot in his rear view mirror. My mate took the next junction whereby he stopped for the traffic lights and after about 30secs the blue sirens had caught up with him and pulled him over.
The police officers angrily told him that he was driving dangerously and that he will within 6 months be summoned to court and will be certainly banned. My mate did not admitt anything, but he asked the officers why they thought he was driving dangerously. They replied that they strongly believe he was doing over 100mph and that is considered as "dangerous driving". My mate was not informed of any evidence they had and neither was he asked to sign anything that he acknowledges that he had been stopped. Is this normal?
The officers only took his address and licence details and explained that he will shortly be expecting a summons.
Should he be worried or are the coppers only bluffing? How come my mate didn't even need to sign anything?
The police officers angrily told him that he was driving dangerously and that he will within 6 months be summoned to court and will be certainly banned. My mate did not admitt anything, but he asked the officers why they thought he was driving dangerously. They replied that they strongly believe he was doing over 100mph and that is considered as "dangerous driving". My mate was not informed of any evidence they had and neither was he asked to sign anything that he acknowledges that he had been stopped. Is this normal?
The officers only took his address and licence details and explained that he will shortly be expecting a summons.
Should he be worried or are the coppers only bluffing? How come my mate didn't even need to sign anything?
"Over 100mph"? Do you mean 101 or 150? The former is very unlikely to be charged as dangerous driving, unless there was bad driving in addition to the excessive speed. The latter might well be.
Also, England or Scotland? The Scottish police and courts seem to be much more willing to charge and convict people of DD on the basis of speed alone than their English counterparts.
Also, England or Scotland? The Scottish police and courts seem to be much more willing to charge and convict people of DD on the basis of speed alone than their English counterparts.
Aretnap said:
"Over 100mph"? Do you mean 101 or 150? The former is very unlikely to be charged as dangerous driving, unless there was bad driving in addition to the excessive speed. The latter might well be.
.
Apparently the police could not pinpoint the speed he was doing. All they said to him was: "u must have been going over 100mph".
leeGT2 said:
vonhosen said:
You don't need an accurate reading of speed for dangerous driving.
What do u need then?Steffan said:
Evidence of Dangerous Driving. From your description of your friends driving I would expect the police officers to be the witnesses testifying that this was dangerous driving. I do think you friend is in some difficulty: courts (esp Scots) are very inclined to accept the word of two police officers who witnessed the DD.
This was not in Scotland and there seems to be no evidence. Otherwise surely if he was driving that dangerously and they had proof, wouldn't they have taken him away?leeGT2 said:
Steffan said:
Evidence of Dangerous Driving. From your description of your friends driving I would expect the police officers to be the witnesses testifying that this was dangerous driving. I do think you friend is in some difficulty: courts (esp Scots) are very inclined to accept the word of two police officers who witnessed the DD.
This was not in Scotland and there seems to be no evidence. Otherwise surely if he was driving that dangerously and they had proof, wouldn't they have taken him away?Steffan said:
The DD charge has been changed to make it easier to achieve conviction for this crime. If the police evidence is convincing your friend will be convicted. Time to employ serious legal experts.
If no summons has been issued yet, than what can a legal expert do at this point in time?leeGT2 said:
Steffan said:
The DD charge has been changed to make it easier to achieve conviction for this crime. If the police evidence is convincing your friend will be convicted. Time to employ serious legal experts.
If no summons has been issued yet, than what can a legal expert do at this point in time?leeGT2 said:
This was in England. The question is, how in this situation could the police prove his speed?
A police officer can charge someone with speeding simply on the basis that in his opinion a driver was speeding , with a second officer corroborating this opinion there is little room for doubt .The basis of the 100 mph speed wasn't by any chance "We had to do 100 to catch you , so you must have been doing 100 as well" ? OTOH , if they claimed to have followed a constant distance behind for 3/10 of a mile , or more , and their speedometer indicated a speed well in excess of the limit , that is a valid way of assessing that the limit was exceeded , even with an uncalibrated speedo , if they followed at an indicated 100 without catching up , it would still be fair to say the 60 or 70 limit was being broken by a fair margin .
It's these types of arbitrary serious charges just based on an opinion or possibly just the speed of a police car not the vehicle in question that shows that speed cameras aren't as bad as made out.At least with a GATSO or Laser you'll have a reasonable record of the actual speed.The only time that cameras can be more of a liability is when they're used in series such as on motorway gantries where running through them at a continuous speed,that would only result in 3 points,could result in multiple charges and loads of points and a ban.The issue of dangerous driving charges just based on speed alone,involving no other aggravating factors, is a different,often politically motivated,matter just based on bs arbitrary attitudes to speed in many cases in which case the law needs to be sorted out to differentiate the two types of offence.IE it's either speeding or it's dangerous driving it can't be both.At least if it's just based on an arbitrary amount by which the national speed limit on a dual carriageway or motorway was exceeded.
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 25th September 01:32
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 25th September 01:35
Edited by XJ Flyer on Wednesday 25th September 01:37
They were probably trying to scare him, although he will be going to court. What were the weather conditions, traffic etc like?
100mph on an empty motorway on Sunday evening in the dry is hardly dangerous in a modern car, in fact not really careless. It also wouldn't see you banned in most cases, you'd probably just get 5 or 6 points and a fine.
However if he was tanking it along at 120 in rush hour and it was raining then that could very well be considered as dangerous driving. If the conditions are as above but he still is charged with dangerous driving, then he could fairly easily argue it down to driving without due care and attention. What sort of car does he drive?
The police don't need to have any sort of equipment to measure his speed. And on a motorway, the opinion of one officer is normally enough to convict.
Dangerous driving carries a mandatory 12 month disqualification and his insurance won't be very nice once he gets his licence back.
Due care and attention is a much lesser punishment.
100mph on an empty motorway on Sunday evening in the dry is hardly dangerous in a modern car, in fact not really careless. It also wouldn't see you banned in most cases, you'd probably just get 5 or 6 points and a fine.
However if he was tanking it along at 120 in rush hour and it was raining then that could very well be considered as dangerous driving. If the conditions are as above but he still is charged with dangerous driving, then he could fairly easily argue it down to driving without due care and attention. What sort of car does he drive?
The police don't need to have any sort of equipment to measure his speed. And on a motorway, the opinion of one officer is normally enough to convict.
Dangerous driving carries a mandatory 12 month disqualification and his insurance won't be very nice once he gets his licence back.
Due care and attention is a much lesser punishment.
Was he interviewed? I'd be surprised if a DD prosecution were without an interview.
Steffan said:
The DD charge has been changed to make it easier to achieve conviction for this crime. If the police evidence is convincing your friend will be convicted. Time to employ serious legal experts.
Why would that make a conviction easier? XJ Flyer said:
I think dangerous driving can also involve a custodial sentence depending on the court's view,with some previous examples on uk motorways resulting from just speeding resulting in higher sentences,than some offences involving violence have done,which is a joke.
It never just involves 'just speed'. Well, it may seem like that to you, but the offence requires more than that. He was driving a 911Turbo. But he has a clean driving licence without any convictions. It was in the evening with and weather conditions were good.
He was not taken to a station to be interviewed. He did not even have to make a statement. He was just told he was driving dangerously and to expect a court summons and he will be banned.
He was not taken to a station to be interviewed. He did not even have to make a statement. He was just told he was driving dangerously and to expect a court summons and he will be banned.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff