Alleged Dangerous Driving
Discussion
Evening All,
I'm posting here on behalf of my old man who, a couple of weeks back, was pulled over by two (non-traffic) police officers for an allegedly dangerous overtake.
He was travelling in a 60 limit single carriageway behind 3 cars all travelling at ~40mph. An opportunity arose to overtake on a fairly long stright bit of road. He pulled out, accellerated past the 3 slower vehicles and (in his opinion) pulled in with bags of time to spare. He was back in his lane by the time oncoming vehicles began to round the bend well up ahead. None of the oncoming drivers flashed or gesticulated in any way. As far as he was concerned it had been a well thought out and successful manouvere.
Further down the road he was pulled by the aforementioned BiB who it turns out were 4-5 cars behind him and had watched the overtake. The conversation quickly turned to his car, a Supercharged Range Rover. They were concerned that such a large vehicle could not possibly have made an overtake on a single carriageway safely. Not helping matters, he fought his corner. Not helping matters even further, once he got home he called the police station to find out the names of the officers involved.
Yesterday he received a citation through the door for dangerous driving. The citation claims that he had dangerously overtaken 3 vehicles and that onoming vehicles had to take evasive action to avoid him. I'm aware that my description of the above is the old man's side of the story, but that bit I'm told is a bare-faced lie on the part of the BiB.
Naturally, he's a bit pi$$ed off with the whole affair and a bit nervous about the prospect of losing his license - something he relies upon for his job.
Can anyone offer any advice on how he should proceed? This happened up North so it's Scottish Law up here. He genuinely believes that he hasn't done anything wrong and that it was in fact a well planned manouvere so I assume a "not guilty" plea would be the best course of action? How easy/difficult will it be for them to prove dangerous driving?
Also, can anyone recommend a good lawyer north of the border?
Thanks!
I'm posting here on behalf of my old man who, a couple of weeks back, was pulled over by two (non-traffic) police officers for an allegedly dangerous overtake.
He was travelling in a 60 limit single carriageway behind 3 cars all travelling at ~40mph. An opportunity arose to overtake on a fairly long stright bit of road. He pulled out, accellerated past the 3 slower vehicles and (in his opinion) pulled in with bags of time to spare. He was back in his lane by the time oncoming vehicles began to round the bend well up ahead. None of the oncoming drivers flashed or gesticulated in any way. As far as he was concerned it had been a well thought out and successful manouvere.
Further down the road he was pulled by the aforementioned BiB who it turns out were 4-5 cars behind him and had watched the overtake. The conversation quickly turned to his car, a Supercharged Range Rover. They were concerned that such a large vehicle could not possibly have made an overtake on a single carriageway safely. Not helping matters, he fought his corner. Not helping matters even further, once he got home he called the police station to find out the names of the officers involved.
Yesterday he received a citation through the door for dangerous driving. The citation claims that he had dangerously overtaken 3 vehicles and that onoming vehicles had to take evasive action to avoid him. I'm aware that my description of the above is the old man's side of the story, but that bit I'm told is a bare-faced lie on the part of the BiB.
Naturally, he's a bit pi$$ed off with the whole affair and a bit nervous about the prospect of losing his license - something he relies upon for his job.
Can anyone offer any advice on how he should proceed? This happened up North so it's Scottish Law up here. He genuinely believes that he hasn't done anything wrong and that it was in fact a well planned manouvere so I assume a "not guilty" plea would be the best course of action? How easy/difficult will it be for them to prove dangerous driving?
Also, can anyone recommend a good lawyer north of the border?
Thanks!
streaky said:
Two against one. Worse, two police officers against one motorist. No contest! Sorry! Stuffed! There, but for the Grace of God, go any of us - Streaky
I dont want to recount the full story, as I have been asked for it before, but I was left with a similar situation.In court I defended myself and successfully cross-examined three police officers and was found not-guilty.
My advice is NOT to plead guilty. I am afraid I cannot recommend a lawyer north of the border, but wanted to add my support.
Despite the fact that there are two officers there are plenty of reasons why their evidence may be discounted. It is difficult enough to judge distances along a straight road from 40 or 50 metres back in a line of traffic... but how could the the officer in the passenger side see that far down the road...!?
These are the type of things a solicitor would bring up, it CAN be done. My gut feeling it that if your father is a strong witness, then he wont be convicted as the strength of his evidence will add enough reasonable doubt to the officers evidence which may be shaky anyway.
JustinP1 said:
streaky said:
Two against one. Worse, two police officers against one motorist. No contest! Sorry! Stuffed! There, but for the Grace of God, go any of us - Streaky
I dont want to recount the full story, as I have been asked for it before, but I was left with a similar situation.In court I defended myself and successfully cross-examined three police officers and was found not-guilty.
My advice is NOT to plead guilty. I am afraid I cannot recommend a lawyer north of the border, but wanted to add my support.
Despite the fact that there are two officers there are plenty of reasons why their evidence may be discounted. It is difficult enough to judge distances along a straight road from 40 or 50 metres back in a line of traffic... but how could the the officer in the passenger side see that far down the road...!?
These are the type of things a solicitor would bring up, it CAN be done. My gut feeling it that if your father is a strong witness, then he wont be convicted as the strength of his evidence will add enough reasonable doubt to the officers evidence which may be shaky anyway.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Agreed, you can question the officers about their Roadcraft training or lack of it, go back to the road, do some measurements too.
I've had a couple of situations where young officers in panda cars have stopped me & questioned me about certain manouvers, one was crossing white lines on the approach to a left hander, the other overtaking. luckily I knew what to ask them! In both situations neither had formal training in overtaking, roadcraft or anything beyond the basic plod test. They were hardly experts in the matter.
The fact they stated the vehicle might "not be suitable" is a very indicator of their actions, also shows their complete lack of car knowledge which could be very helpful.
If I were you I'd try to speak to a proper Trafpol from the same area & ask his advice, you never know they might well put words forward, question the officers on the side & you might be lucky. This is what I did in one instance & it worked.
I've had a couple of situations where young officers in panda cars have stopped me & questioned me about certain manouvers, one was crossing white lines on the approach to a left hander, the other overtaking. luckily I knew what to ask them! In both situations neither had formal training in overtaking, roadcraft or anything beyond the basic plod test. They were hardly experts in the matter.
The fact they stated the vehicle might "not be suitable" is a very indicator of their actions, also shows their complete lack of car knowledge which could be very helpful.
If I were you I'd try to speak to a proper Trafpol from the same area & ask his advice, you never know they might well put words forward, question the officers on the side & you might be lucky. This is what I did in one instance & it worked.
The Griffalo said:
They'll go for DD and then "offer" drop it to due care and attention.
If they do that it should still be rejected and a 'not guilty' plea maintained IMHO.Declan's suggestion is good; speak to TrafPol or somebody that will understand these matters better.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Hi. Haven't posted on this forum for years, but read this and feel some sympathy.
I was in a similar situation a few years back, for due care and attention, and was found "no case to answer"(even better than not guilty), after a year of inconvenience, adjournments and threats/scaremongering off the police.
If you feel you are right, then stand up for yourself. I was threatened with "£2000 fine and disqualification" to try and get me to plead guilty. To be honest, I spent most of the year scared to death, as my family and I rely on my driving licence to pay the mortgage.
The police will try everything to intimidate you, but unless they have the correct evidence, which they won't if it wasn't dangerous driving, you can't be found guilty.
I began doubting myself after recieving the various threatening letters etc... but am glad I stuck to my guns.
If they are going to try and prosecute they are obliged to hand you any evidence they have, firstly DEMAND all evidence they have, take a look, and decide what the magistrate would make of it. In my case they managed to withhold it for a year until TWO DAYS BEFORE court, presumably because they knew they had nothing (I was innocent) and knew that the threats would work better than evidence.
Ask for the evidence, if they give it you, then make your mind up. If they don't, they have nothing, and are trying to scare you into a guilty plea.
DON'T TAKE ANY CR*P.
I was in a similar situation a few years back, for due care and attention, and was found "no case to answer"(even better than not guilty), after a year of inconvenience, adjournments and threats/scaremongering off the police.
If you feel you are right, then stand up for yourself. I was threatened with "£2000 fine and disqualification" to try and get me to plead guilty. To be honest, I spent most of the year scared to death, as my family and I rely on my driving licence to pay the mortgage.
The police will try everything to intimidate you, but unless they have the correct evidence, which they won't if it wasn't dangerous driving, you can't be found guilty.
I began doubting myself after recieving the various threatening letters etc... but am glad I stuck to my guns.
If they are going to try and prosecute they are obliged to hand you any evidence they have, firstly DEMAND all evidence they have, take a look, and decide what the magistrate would make of it. In my case they managed to withhold it for a year until TWO DAYS BEFORE court, presumably because they knew they had nothing (I was innocent) and knew that the threats would work better than evidence.
Ask for the evidence, if they give it you, then make your mind up. If they don't, they have nothing, and are trying to scare you into a guilty plea.
DON'T TAKE ANY CR*P.
Edited by feet on Wednesday 29th August 20:03
cptsideways said:
Agreed, you can question the officers about their Roadcraft training or lack of it, go back to the road, do some measurements too.
I've had a couple of situations where young officers in panda cars have stopped me & questioned me about certain maneuvers, one was crossing white lines on the approach to a left hander, the other overtaking. luckily I knew what to ask them! In both situations neither had formal training in overtaking, road craft or anything beyond the basic plod test. They were hardly experts in the matter.
How did you get away with that ?? Assuming solid whites...?I've had a couple of situations where young officers in panda cars have stopped me & questioned me about certain maneuvers, one was crossing white lines on the approach to a left hander, the other overtaking. luckily I knew what to ask them! In both situations neither had formal training in overtaking, road craft or anything beyond the basic plod test. They were hardly experts in the matter.
TripleS said:
The Griffalo said:
They'll go for DD and then "offer" drop it to due care and attention.
If they do that it should still be rejected and a 'not guilty' plea maintained IMHO.Declan's suggestion is good; speak to TrafPol or somebody that will understand these matters better.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
These guys state it was dangerous, he says it wasn't.
They'll each have a chance to say why & be cross examined.
The court will decide whether the prosecution case is sufficient or the accused introduces sufficient reasonable doubt in their case.
We don't know here whether it was dangerous or not. It boils down to who is convincing in court by providing good reliable evidence.
As I understand, Dangerous Drivinh charges are quite hard to make stick and they generally rely on capitulation by the defendant.
Get over to http://pepipoo.com/ for more info
Get over to http://pepipoo.com/ for more info
Summons ( which I take to be a citation) served within 14 days of the occurrence ?
Wow that is fast.....makes note keep out of Scotland.
You sure that that 'citation' is not a written Notice of Intended Prosecution which they must serve, either verbally at the time (often backed up with written one) or in writing.
Is so then the decision to prosecute has yet to be made. The prosecutor, under the facts given, may want some independent evidence before he goes ahead?
Time will tell.
dvd
Wow that is fast.....makes note keep out of Scotland.
You sure that that 'citation' is not a written Notice of Intended Prosecution which they must serve, either verbally at the time (often backed up with written one) or in writing.
Is so then the decision to prosecute has yet to be made. The prosecutor, under the facts given, may want some independent evidence before he goes ahead?
Time will tell.
dvd
You are north of the border, which has a bearing on this so may differ to my understanding, but given Von's post in the past re: DD and the seriousness of the offence, and the difficulty in proving the charge, it may be a good thing that they have charged with DD over DWDC or equivalent!
I don't see how the evidence of two plod 50 m behind you can amount to sufficient evidence to secure DD (unless there was something like skid marks from skidding after a botched move/near miss/broken side mirror etc.. SOME sort of corroboration of something ffS!). If I thought the manouver was safe I would be pleading Not guilty till the cows came home on this one.
Wish him the best of luck
Stu
I don't see how the evidence of two plod 50 m behind you can amount to sufficient evidence to secure DD (unless there was something like skid marks from skidding after a botched move/near miss/broken side mirror etc.. SOME sort of corroboration of something ffS!). If I thought the manouver was safe I would be pleading Not guilty till the cows came home on this one.
Wish him the best of luck
Stu
Gorvid said:
cptsideways said:
Agreed, you can question the officers about their Roadcraft training or lack of it, go back to the road, do some measurements too.
I've had a couple of situations where young officers in panda cars have stopped me & questioned me about certain maneuvers, one was crossing white lines on the approach to a left hander, the other overtaking. luckily I knew what to ask them! In both situations neither had formal training in overtaking, road craft or anything beyond the basic plod test. They were hardly experts in the matter.
How did you get away with that ?? Assuming solid whites...?I've had a couple of situations where young officers in panda cars have stopped me & questioned me about certain maneuvers, one was crossing white lines on the approach to a left hander, the other overtaking. luckily I knew what to ask them! In both situations neither had formal training in overtaking, road craft or anything beyond the basic plod test. They were hardly experts in the matter.
mrmr96 said:
Gorvid said:
cptsideways said:
Agreed, you can question the officers about their Roadcraft training or lack of it, go back to the road, do some measurements too.
I've had a couple of situations where young officers in panda cars have stopped me & questioned me about certain maneuvers, one was crossing white lines on the approach to a left hander, the other overtaking. luckily I knew what to ask them! In both situations neither had formal training in overtaking, road craft or anything beyond the basic plod test. They were hardly experts in the matter.
How did you get away with that ?? Assuming solid whites...?I've had a couple of situations where young officers in panda cars have stopped me & questioned me about certain maneuvers, one was crossing white lines on the approach to a left hander, the other overtaking. luckily I knew what to ask them! In both situations neither had formal training in overtaking, road craft or anything beyond the basic plod test. They were hardly experts in the matter.
Thanks everyone for all the support and suggestions.
He's definitely intent on fighting it all the way even if the "offer" is made to reduce the charge to Due Care & Attention.
It's great to hear some of you have contested this kind of thing before and won.
I'll post back once we find out the extent of what they're claiming on the charge sheet...Should make for interersting reading...
He's definitely intent on fighting it all the way even if the "offer" is made to reduce the charge to Due Care & Attention.
It's great to hear some of you have contested this kind of thing before and won.
I'll post back once we find out the extent of what they're claiming on the charge sheet...Should make for interersting reading...
Funny really, had a bad day at work a while back, so took a fav. road home to unwind. Had a marked plod behind, but for once thought sod it ... Kept it totally legal (as I always do) but made good use of straight lining and offsiding. Get to my "turn off" plod catch up and as I glaced in the mirror got a smile and thumbs up ...
Top lads ...
Martin
Top lads ...
Martin
mrmr96 said:
Gorvid said:
cptsideways said:
Agreed, you can question the officers about their Roadcraft training or lack of it, go back to the road, do some measurements too.
I've had a couple of situations where young officers in panda cars have stopped me & questioned me about certain maneuvers, one was crossing white lines on the approach to a left hander, the other overtaking. luckily I knew what to ask them! In both situations neither had formal training in overtaking, road craft or anything beyond the basic plod test. They were hardly experts in the matter.
How did you get away with that ?? Assuming solid whites...?I've had a couple of situations where young officers in panda cars have stopped me & questioned me about certain maneuvers, one was crossing white lines on the approach to a left hander, the other overtaking. luckily I knew what to ask them! In both situations neither had formal training in overtaking, road craft or anything beyond the basic plod test. They were hardly experts in the matter.
Edited to add a response to VH's post - I was taught originally by Trafpol some 15 years ago & have had several updates over the years. have also have taught some of the Trafpol boys car control over the years, so frequently get the boys in blue in tow
But yes I quite agree in principle, done badly it can be very dangerous indeed & can quite often be alarming to others, so one drives according, to who & what is about as not to alarm too many people. Hence why I've said before - you can spot a properly trained trafpol a mile away, regardless of what their driving
Edited by cptsideways on Wednesday 29th August 23:10
assuming driving conditions were good and all cars were driving to the highway code.
the OP states the police were 4-5 cars behind the range, if we take the ford focus to be an average car with a length of roughly 4.3m the said police car should be around about 166.9m behind the range.
this to me seems along way from being able to see the road ahead clearly as the range has the advantage of being 170m ahead and a higher driving position than said BiB (unless they were also in one of the jeeps) at this distance it is very difficult to tell how close or how far apart things are so can they be sure that the cars coming towards them werent 1-200m further infront of the range.
all seems a bit much to me and watching that prog tonight on itv it appears that alot of evidence is needed for a DD charge to be issued.
the OP states the police were 4-5 cars behind the range, if we take the ford focus to be an average car with a length of roughly 4.3m the said police car should be around about 166.9m behind the range.
this to me seems along way from being able to see the road ahead clearly as the range has the advantage of being 170m ahead and a higher driving position than said BiB (unless they were also in one of the jeeps) at this distance it is very difficult to tell how close or how far apart things are so can they be sure that the cars coming towards them werent 1-200m further infront of the range.
all seems a bit much to me and watching that prog tonight on itv it appears that alot of evidence is needed for a DD charge to be issued.
Very similar thing happened to me, I took the offer of careless and sincerely wish I hadn't.
Dangerous is highly unlikely to stick in these circumstances but it is still open to the mags to convict of the lesser offence. Without evidence from one of the on-coming motorists, I think the mags will give you the benefit of the doubt. The crucial question is this: given that the BiBs will have had the opportunity to take the reg no. of the on-coming motorist, why haven't they called him to give evidence?
Dangerous is highly unlikely to stick in these circumstances but it is still open to the mags to convict of the lesser offence. Without evidence from one of the on-coming motorists, I think the mags will give you the benefit of the doubt. The crucial question is this: given that the BiBs will have had the opportunity to take the reg no. of the on-coming motorist, why haven't they called him to give evidence?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff