Prosecution for driving without due care and attention

[-Ralph-]

Now, I know asking for legal advise on a forum is daft, particularly if you intend to act on it. So lets say I'm not asking for advice, but opinion.

Also, I don't want to be a pr*ck, but it is the nature of forums that lots of people reply authoritatively when actually, they haven't got a clue, they just want to appear to be knowledgeable. So I'm looking for the opinions of professionals (police, solicitors, etc) or people with first hand experience that have been accused of this offence, so if you could please state your credentials when replying so I know who is to be listened to and who is spouting horse manure that would be much appreciated.

Sorry, but I'm also not interested in what armchair experts have found on the web, I can use google myself, and even if you find copies of legal documents online, these cannot be interpreted successfully by you and I, they need professionals who have experience of how they are interpreted by the courts.

I had to perform an emergency stop after a school crossing patrol walked out in front of me with children already in tow. I have photos of the scene taken at a later date that clearly show the school crossing patrol is completely obscured from the drivers view. There is no doubt that I have committed no offence, in fact it was my care and attention that prevented an accident, (there was no impact). Having never spoken to the police, 6 weeks later I receive an NIP though the post. I haven't yet seen any evidence to support this if indeed any exists.

Just note that the 14 day rule does not apply to all mototing offences, so if they intended to prosecute you for something other than speeding (ie dangerous driving) you'll need to check it out. I can't give a list of which offences apply, but I know Driving without due care NIP does not have to be served within14 days.

I got done for due care in 2003, the 14 day rule dose not apply, 6 months was the wait, and yes 6 months and 2 days latter the notice came. So if they go down that route its a long wait sorry

Regardless of the offence, if a NIP is required then it must be served within the 14 days if the driver was not given the Section 1 warning or informed a report was being submitted for the consideration of a prosecution.

It's interesting to see you write that MBK, because as per what I have written above about asking for advice on forums, I respect your opinion on the subject.

My solicitor has advised me that the 14 day rule does not apply to Driving without Due Care and that they have up to six months to file proceedings with the court. He is a specialist motoring solicitor of 25 years experience.

Ian has been convicted following a six month old NIP. He was not warned or informed at the time of the offence, but in an interview afterwards (Ian if you can furnish us with further details that would be much appreciated).

MBK - I'm not suggesting that you are wrong, but certainly you disagree with my solicitor. I do quite a detailed and technical job too, and quite often my colleagues and I disagree on things and have to look it up or get clarification from somewhere, and of course one of us has to have got it wrong. Now we are experts in what we do, but nobody can be 100% right, 100% of the time, and keep that much detail accurately in our heads.

Is there anyway you could check it out at work for us and let us know?

Bluepete - What do you think?

Thanks....

[Lozzo]

I suggest you google for 'Statute of Limitations' and digest what is written

[-Ralph-]

There were a few more cars parked there on the day, but if you were the Mini driver in this photo can you see the crossing patrol? The Ford Galaxy and BMW 4x4 both have tinted glass.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/P1000539.jpg

Yep, you're thinking "What school crossing patrol? Well this one likes hiding in hedges! I had to wait quite a while to get this photo, as unless he was actually in the road, he was hidden behind the hedge as per the photo above the whole time. Once he saw me snapping with a camera he moved to the kerbside in front of the Ford Galaxy and stood there.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/P1000540.jpg

[Bibio]

what time of day was this?

[svdemon]

What an absolutely ludicrous position for a school crossing!!!

[-Ralph-]

what time of day was this?

08:50 weekday, both on the day of the alleged offence, and on the day I took the photo.

[Spiderman]

all i can add is that some of the lollipops now have CCTV in them believe it or not, so it could stem from an over zealous interpretation of your stopping. Obviously you can ask what evidence is avilable, when they are forced to submit it to you by tho i dont know.

[lukemillar]

There were a few more cars parked there on the day, but if you were the Mini driver in this photo can you see the crossing patrol? The Ford Galaxy and BMW 4x4 both have tinted glass.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd82/colinbal4/P1000539.jpg



What does that sign at the top of the lampost mean?

[Bibio]

yes how many signs does it take to tell people to slow down. 8:50am means kids going to school or even running late getting to school so 'running without paying attention'. you say you were not speeding but you had to 'perform an emergency stop' because the crossing patrol person 'walked right out in front of you. crossing patrol people just don't walk out in front of cars, they are responsible people who are 'vetted' to do a responsible job involving the safety of children. its the responsibility of the driver/rider to look out for such hazards. failing not to notice such hazard is 'driving without due care and attention'.

thankfully your reactions were good and no accident occurred.

[600+]

crossing patrol people just don't walk out in front of cars, they are responsible people who are 'vetted' to do a responsible job involving the safety of children.

very interested to understand how they are chosen really! what is the vetting process as the ones I have around my area are fairly ignorant to the fact that in a 30mph limit deciding to stop the traffic with a car approaching just few yards from them is absolutely fine. had to slam the breaks a few times.......doesn't mean I was speeding if I had to stop in short notice at any speed.

[SoulKiss]

yes how many signs does it take to tell people to slow down. 8:50am means kids going to school or even running late getting to school so 'running without paying attention'. you say you were not speeding but you had to 'perform an emergency stop' because the crossing patrol person 'walked right out in front of you. crossing patrol people just don't walk out in front of cars, they are responsible people who are 'vetted' to do a responsible job involving the safety of children. its the responsibility of the driver/rider to look out for such hazards. failing not to notice such hazard is 'driving without due care and attention'.

thankfully your reactions were good and no accident occurred.

Rubbish - there is one posted at a Zebra Crossing round the back of Waterloo Station (I wont even go into the rant about why he's there when there is already a crossing marked) who never leaves the pavement - despite it being a VERY wide piece of road (would have been 2 lanes each way with a refuge in the middle until they put the cycle lanes in)

He just steps to the edge and kind of waves at drivers to stop - even given todays standards, most people DO take note of Zebra Crossings...

[theshed]

first thing the 14 day notice period is not written in stone ( if plod is making inquiries as to the driver for example a company pool car where they need to write to the owners of the vehicle )
acting as devils advocate you say you wasnt speeding but i say you was not going above the speed LIMIT but was going to fast for the road conditions,
are you aware that crossing patrol officers have limited powers of arrest ect. and many do have cameras attatched to their helmets

[muffles]

first thing the 14 day notice period is not written in stone ( if plod is making inquiries as to the driver for example a company pool car where they need to write to the owners of the vehicle )

Actually I thought it is written in stone, in the example you give they have 14 days to notify the registered keeper, that is the company. After that they don't have the same time limits, but for the initial contact it's 14 days I believe...?

And I'm more familiar with that for speeding offences so I'm not sure if the same restrictions apply to more serious offences - e.g. if you were accused of death by dangerous I don't think they would "let" you get off on the 14-day NIP rule...?

[theshed]

i think they must show they made every possible effort the details im not sure about as i am just going on my experience as a lgv driver where it can take longer, especially if the driver at the time was working through an agency.
but the same must also apply in the case of stolen cars where it takes time to track down the driver.

[muffles]

i think they must show they made every possible effort the details im not sure about as i am just going on my experience as a lgv driver where it can take longer, especially if the driver at the time was working through an agency.
but the same must also apply in the case of stolen cars where it takes time to track down the driver.

Yeah I agree you're right about finding out the driver details/naming the driver on S172, that can certainly (legitimately) take longer - I was just clarifying that for initial contact - i.e. the first thing they do - needs to be in the 14 days (plus 1 day for post or something, generally). That's usually pretty easy cos they just go to the DVLA and ask for the registered keeper, then they can send out the initial NIP within the 14 days.

[plowsie]

What does that sign at the top of the lampost mean?
Women and Children first?

[muffles]

Women and Children first?

No no, look at their body position and the way the mother is dragging the child....it means "run quickly when you cross, speeding cars a-coming" ;) :p

[The Guru]

There is plenty of warning signs there. Were you driving under 20mph?

To be fair, the obvious place for the lollypop person is on the outer side of the bend for maximum visibility for both drivers and the lollypop person to make sure that the road is/or will be clear.

Things to look into.
Whats the guidelines for Crossing patrols in your council area? Were the guidelines followed?

Was the Crossing patrol person correctly dressed (Approved Uniform)? Was their sign legal? etc

[peterco]

Do check the highway code re school crossing

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Signsandmarkings/index.htm

signals by authorised persons.

do not know if this will help.

pete

[The Guru]

Was just about to post that
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Signsandmarkings/index.htm?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=95044&Rendition=Web

[carty]

I had to perform an emergency stop after a school crossing patrol walked out in front of me with children already in tow. I have photos of the scene taken at a later date that clearly show the school crossing patrol is completely obscured from the drivers view. There is no doubt that I have committed no offence, in fact it was my care and attention that prevented an accident, (there was no impact). Having never spoken to the police, 6 weeks later I receive an NIP though the post. I haven't yet seen any evidence to support this if indeed any exists.

I don't see how they can try and prosecute you when no incident occurred?! What am I missing here?! Key questions in my mind are;

1) How many metres from the crossing were you when you realised you were going to have to stop?
2) At that distance away, were you doing 20mph or less?
3) What is the stopping distance for the speed you were doing?
4) How far away from the crossing were you when you came to a standstill?

If you can demonstrate that you saw the danger x metres in front, were travelling at or below the speed limit, and stopped in time (didn't encroach on to the crossing), then I really can't see any grounds for issuing the NIP.

[muffles]

I don't see how they can try and prosecute you when no incident occurred?! What am I missing here?!

All other things aside, since it sounds like he was driving fairly reasonably...you can definitely prosecute when no 'incident' occurred...

IIRC I think the definition of driving without due care and attention is that "your driving falls below the standard expected by the average motorist" - the 'incident' would be the driving and not necessarily a collision.

[ArtyLady]

If you had bowled up the road at 100 and straight into the them then fair do's - but you saw them (albeit late) and you stopped! what more do they want? Perfection? it doesn't exsist - are they going to prosecute for every little mistake now?

Oh and I meant to say - what a feckin stupid place for a school crossing!! they need their heads testing!

[Kilted Ginger]

Carty, pete and guru, good posts.
The angle of the lollipop was something i was unaware of, interesting that, wonder how many lollipopers know that.
one of my local ones regularly crosses with kids and no lollipop.
Carty that was the questions i asked.
Lastly, I was under the impression the 20mph was advisory not mandatory, ie not withi a red circle. the fact -ralph- stopped would also suggest he was not driving withoout due care.

A question. moned to a new thread (http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=135799) so as not to derail.

[carty]

IIRC I think the definition of driving without due care and attention is that "your driving falls below the standard expected by the average motorist" - the 'incident' would be the driving and not necessarily a collision.

So I think what this means is that in this case they would expect the average motorist to stop without it looking like a drama? In which case surely it's Ralph's word against whoever told the police 'it looked like an emergency stop when he should have cruised up to the crossing nice and gently'. I would be fuming about this, not that it would help...

Can you ask for the police to provie details of what precisely they believe constitutes the 'undue care and attention', ie, what evidence they have? If it's the word of an over-protective mother is that enough for a prosecution? I could go to the police and make up a story about someone almost bashing in to me at a zebra crossing - it just seems crazy if that's all the evidence they have?!

[muffles]

So I think what this means is that in this case they would expect the average motorist to stop without it looking like a drama? In which case surely it's Ralph's word against whoever told the police 'it looked like an emergency stop when he should have cruised up to the crossing nice and gently'. I would be fuming about this, not that it would help...

Can you ask for the police to provie details of what precisely they believe constitutes the 'undue care and attention', ie, what evidence they have? If it's the word of an over-protective mother is that enough for a prosecution? I could go to the police and make up a story about someone almost bashing in to me at a zebra crossing - it just seems crazy if that's all the evidence they have?!

Yeah, that's it - and I agree with you - just pointing out how what constitutes evidence towards this type of offence, so you can comment :)
Re: the his word vs their word, that wouldn't be enough unless they were a police officer or there was some other evidence to disprove his version.

[Red Herring]

Ralph, as you say the law is relatively complicated which is why so many people make a living arguing about it.
Careless driving is one of the offences listed under S.1 Road Traffic Offenders Act as requiring an NIP to be served on the driver or registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged incident, however under S. 2 (1) the requirement does not apply if at the time or immediately after the incident, and owing to the presence of that vehicle on a road, an accident occurs. Now the definition of an "accident" in these circumstances is broader that that under S.170 (injury or damage), in fact the courts have stopped short of giving a specific definition, but what is generally accepted is would an ordinary person say that there had been an accident with regard to all of the circumstances.

For example, and I'm not suggesting this is what happened, if when you braked suddenly to a halt one of the persons about to use the crossing jumped back and knocked over the person behind them they may argue that you caused it.

Given that most allegations of careless driving arise following an accident i suspect this is where the confusion over the need for an NIP arises from.

I would be tempted to wait until an actual summons arrives, or you get asked for an interview, before spending to much money on legal advice (or worrying about it). The Police move in strange ways sometimes and tend to follow procedure quite a bit, in other words someone makes an allegation and various forms get filled in and sent off before anybody with any sense really gets to have a proper look at it. You've done the right thing taking the photos, but one taken from your position when you first saw the crossing patrol would be useful. Also take photos of any road markings that might be relevant (are those cars parked lawfully?). Good luck.

[Dicky Ticker]

Looking at it from the fact that if the crossing patrol was obscured from your view by parked vehicles,it therefore implies that you were obscured by parked vehicles to the crossing patrol. Crossing patrols are fallible like anybody else and as you managed to stop camera evidence does not always give an accurate analysis of the situation.
You made an emergency stop so I would presume there would be a skid mark.
The following figs are from the Technical Service Forensic Engineering.
A vehicle leaves a 40ft skid mark before coming to rest-the original speed is about 30mph.
If you are behind 3 parked cars this would be about 60ft so you add thinking time and braking distance into the factor and you managed to stop.
Alternatively if the crossing patrol saw you it is their duty to allow a safe time distance for you to stop
i.e. It would be completely irresponsible for them to step out in front of a vehicle at 60ft and expect them to stop without skidding to a halt.

[Red Herring]

I doubt there would be a skid mark six weeks later when he got the NIP, unless of course he hasn't done his washing. Ralph also didn't say if he was in a car or on his bike.
Looking further at the photos distance can be very hard to judge, just how close to the "crossing" is the nearest vehicle parked? As I said earlier a photo taken from that position would be very useful in helping us offer a useful opinion.

[Kilted Ginger]

It was in the car, with abs which kicked in, so no skid mark, having said that my abs (same car) sometimes kicks in earlier than i would have expected, i suppose thats a good thing but as with all automated things leeaves no room for ability. ANyway, that does not matter and could derail.

In the car, abs so no skid.

[ArtyLady]

Also I reckon that signage is a bit of a visual overload too - IMO that would take quite a few seconds to take onboard :???:

[21QUEST]

Ralph, I'd leave the finer points to others but a question for you, if I may.

Is it a road you are familair with? ie you were aware(from previous experience) that the Lollipop person would normally be operating at the section of that road?



Ben

[JamesMio]

Have you tried your luck with this on Pepipoo yet Ralph? I got a load of good advice on there last year.

[21QUEST]

Also I reckon that signage is a bit of a visual overload too - IMO that would take quite a few seconds to take onboard :???:
hah!! I'd suggest anyone needing few seconds to take it all in, need to join the IAM :p ;)



Ben

[ArtyLady]

hah!! I'd suggest anyone needing few seconds to take it all in, need to join the IAM :p ;)



Ben

Haha point taken ;)

but seriously - they do say that there are rather alot of distracting signs on our roads these days and IMO this is a case in point!

[AndyW]

You need to go to www.pepipoo.com with all possible speed. They have qualified solicitors, police mean, magistrates et al. on there who will give you very good advice.

For motoring offences you need a specialist solictor, a general one is worse than useless (as are some so-called specialists).

As you said, asking people on here all you will get are opinions, not the facts as they apply to the case.

[Harpo]

8:50am with a children crossing warning sign? I'm all for biker sympathy, but seriously come on...!

[carty]

It was in the car, with abs which kicked in, so no skid mark

I am struggling to understand at what point the lollipop person appeared. My car will stop from 20mph almost instantly (not literally but you know what I mean) so I have to think that either;

The lollipop person stepped in to the road when the car was VERY close to the crossing (stupid, but possible)
Or, the lollipop person was already in the road when they became visible and the distance required the emergency stop
Or, the lollipop person was in the road and they should have been visible, but the driver was not looking and didn't process it for a few seconds, by which time an emergency stop was required.
The first two, brilliant, car stopped, accident avoided, crossing is in a stupid place. The third one, could constitute driving without due care and attention.

As I said, the reason I'm struggling is cos I know how fast cars stop (it's no good quoting stopping distances from the highway code as they're so out of date) and the people on the crossing must have been seen very late to require an emergency stop.

[carty]

I had to perform an emergency stop after a school crossing patrol walked out in front of me with children already in tow.

Taken from the first post, it would appear that my item 1 from above relates; and to me that implies that it is the crossing patrol person that should be sacked / given a rollocking rather than prosecuting the driver that saved the children's lives. However, how does this relate to the photo's you took? It looks as though you've taken those photo's showing that at that point the crossing was unsighted, which it is, but is completely irrelevant if they weren't already in the road at that point. The crossing is clearly signed at that point and you should be prepared to stop, but at the point the photo's are taken you wouldn't know whether it would be necessary. I would suggest taking some photo's from the actual point at which the crossing patrol 'walked out in front of [you]' to show the distance you were left with in which to stop the vehicle.

If the patrol was already in the road when you came round the corner, the crossing is in a stupid place but you would reasonably be expected to be able to stop without drama.

A difficult one for sure. :smt064

[Biker Biggles]

8:50am with a children crossing warning sign? I'm all for biker sympathy, but seriously come on...!


Whats "biker sympathy" got to do with it when hes driving a car?
Did you read the thread or not bother before commenting?

[Welsh_Wizard]

As someone mention, the magistrate, when convicting of this offence will use the 'Mr & Mrs Reasonability test' - would a 'normal' person act in the same/similar way given exactly the same conditions.

As someone else mentioned, police follow procedure. If this lollipop person has decided to go to a police officer and make a complaint then he has to follow it up.

Put it this way however.. If I was investigating this and saw the pictures on the beginning of this thread, the position of the crossing and the fact that no one was injured - save the inclusion of a witness statement that said they believed you to be speeding, i doubt whether it would even pass the threshold test and I know my sergeant would be writing it off quicker than you can say 'over zealous jobs worth'.

The only thing that is going to stitch you up here is a statement from an independant 3rd party witness saying they thought your actions were sub-standard somehow. I can't see how any CPS solicitor would approve a prosecution in this case given the circumstance outlined at the beginning.

[Kilted Ginger]

to my best knowledge, (which is often flawed) the lollipop man was leaning against / into hedge and imediately moved onto road, still with sign down but with small group of kids in tow, ie not waiting at roadside until told to cross. As soon as the lollipop man moved out ralph stopped, well short of the actual crossing and at no point was anybody in danger. The lollipop man obviously never saw ralph approaching as he got a fright when ralph stopped, hence the discussion around visability.
i'm not defending anybody or saying what is right or wrong, there is sign intimating school crossing, there are 3 down the road from me at a school that has been closed for 2 years. personally i would have thought standing on the apex of the curve would have provided a much more visable vantage point for the lollipop man and that there should have been parking restrictions in force that close to a crossing. imho

[carty]

Whats "biker sympathy" got to do with it when hes driving a car?

Cos he's a biker! :D

To be honest, that was my first thought too. The crossing is clearly signed, it's on a blind bend, 8:50am in the morning with the little darlings likely to spring from anywhere - I'd like to think I'd be going round there at <10mph 'just in case' - but it is still not clear at what point the crossing patrol person appeared in the road, and that is the key for me.

[svdemon]

Putting a crossing on a blind bend, obscured by parked cars is idiotic regardless of how many signs you put up.

Anyone remember that "common sense" thing that used to exist?

[carty]

to my best knowledge, (which is often flawed) the lollipop man was leaning against / into hedge and imediately moved onto road, still with sign down but with small group of kids in tow, ie not waiting at roadside until told to cross. As soon as the lollipop man moved out ralph stopped, well short of the actual crossing and at no point was anybody in danger. The lollipop man obviously never saw ralph approaching as he got a fright when ralph stopped, hence the discussion around visability.

So if this is correct he's obviously of a nervous disposition and shouldn't really be relied upon as a witness.

Although I have been known to cut things a bit fine and claim to my passengers 'there was loads of room' :D One man's 'well short' is another's 'near miss'.....

[-Ralph-]

Thanks for all replies to this folks. Too many questions to answer them all, but a few points which may clear some stuff up.

1. I had seen the 'children crossing' sign, but as you can see from the photos taken at the same time of day, there are very few kids around, but I had my eyes open for them. The kids are walking on a footpath which cuts through the housing estate and emerges onto the road at the point where you see the crossing patrol's sign.

2. I stopped within 30 ft or so, I estimate my speed at about 20mph.

3. The crossing patrol did walk straight out in front of me from in front of a parked car (remember there were more cars there than on the day of the photo). I saw him before he saw me and he filled his trousers when he actually did decide to look up the road and saw me so close. I didn't see him, my wife sitting next to me didn't see him and he didn't see us, until we within a distance from each other that required an emergency stop. He admitted he can't see well enough due to parked cars and has been trying to get double yellows painted at the site. As you can see from the photos, it's not possible to see him down the left hand side of the cars, before you move into a position where your view of the pavement is obscured by them. As I said normal cars wouldn't be an issue, I'd see through or over the top, but its a school with lots of 4x4's & people carriers with tinted glass. The scary part is he didn't take position in the road then invite the kids across, they were already running across in front of him as he walked out. The crossing patrol is not getting prosecuted though, I am, so he could be the worst crossing patrol in the world and it wouldn't stop me getting convicted, it's my driving that is in question.

I don't think I have committed any offence to answer, I have responded to the NIP with a letter drafted by my solicitor and the above photos. Now I just have to hope the police see no offence has been committed and drop the prosecution.

[Harpo]

Whats "biker sympathy" got to do with it when hes driving a car?
Did you read the thread or not bother before commenting?

Cos he's a biker! :D


That's what I originally meant, sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes a realise he was caging...

Traitor. :D

[Harpo]

...But yeah, apart from giving the lollipop person a scare, what offence has actually been committed? It's not like there are pieces of child draped artfully over your bonnet!

[Milky Bar Kid]

Ralph, in response to the question asked:

Give me ten minutes til I look up my traffic books!

[Milky Bar Kid]

Ok:

Sections of the Road Traffic ACt 1988 to which the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 applies:

S1,2,3,22,28,29,35,36. Section 3 being the one which we are discussing - Careless driving (commonly know as without due care and attention.)

Methods of Giving Warning:

At the time of the offence. If the offender is stopped at the time of the offence then you would give the notice of intended prosecution at the time : Ie "you will be reported for the consideration of a prosecution blah blah blah"

By Service within 14 days. NIP would be sent through the post WITHIN 14 days.

Copy complaint: normally not used unless offender is in custody.

On occasions, no warning given. Although normally in unusual circumstance where the offender was not traced or had given false name and address.

These are of course, based on the Scottish Law interpretation of the Road Traffic Act, although mostly the same, due to our court system being different, there may be differences when it comes to the service of documents etc.

I do know that on occasions the NIP may not be served within 14 days if enquiries have been ongoing to trace the driver of the vehicle. as such, it will be served as soo as the driver is known. I don't know the ins and outs of your case and as such, I cannot comment on it individually. If your solicitor is saying that then I believe that he will be right. The law is not black and white due to there being so many different circumstances and incidents.

[rusty76]

Alright Ralph.

I may be going over old ground here so please excuse. On my NIP there was a telephone number for enquiries that could be used following responding to the NIP. I was reluctant to use this in case of misrepresenting myself, and I'm guessing your solicitor might also suggest likewise. However a couple of people did ring on my behalf (my insurance company & my bro-in-law who's a copper) which they did'nt seem to have a problem with. Apparently they were very genial and fairly open, discussed the case and said (in their opinion because a policeman and/or upper management has to consider it) that it would be unlikely to be pursued. I'm a pessimistic ba5tard but sure enough eventually got a letter confirming this.

When I got my NIP I was a little anxious to say the least (it stated dangerous driving and without due care). Sadly the NIP seems to be part of police system for following up any allegations, e.g I could pick any registration number, make an allegation, and they will recieve a NIP. Luckily there are still real people in the system who deal with this kind of crap day-in-day-out. Hopefully when your's reaches that stage it'll also get slung out cos when it boils down to it nothing happened, just some strung out busy-body with nothing better to do made an allegation.

I hope this is of some reassurance mate

[ryanh1418]

As someone mention, the magistrate, when convicting of this offence will use the 'Mr & Mrs Reasonability test' - would a 'normal' person act in the same/similar way given exactly the same conditions.

As someone else mentioned, police follow procedure. If this lollipop person has decided to go to a police officer and make a complaint then he has to follow it up.

Put it this way however.. If I was investigating this and saw the pictures on the beginning of this thread, the position of the crossing and the fact that no one was injured - save the inclusion of a witness statement that said they believed you to be speeding, i doubt whether it would even pass the threshold test and I know my sergeant would be writing it off quicker than you can say 'over zealous jobs worth'.

The only thing that is going to stitch you up here is a statement from an independant 3rd party witness saying they thought your actions were sub-standard somehow. I can't see how any CPS solicitor would approve a prosecution in this case given the circumstance outlined at the beginning.

+1
Happens all the time but my force's policy is that nothing will happen without at least two independant witnesses reporting the same. I would *assume* that is what has happened here. People's perception of speed is more often than not well out. As above, I'd expect to be laughed at by Sgt/CPS and personally I'd be looking along the "words of advice" route anyway - wouldn't even consider a prosecution. But you also have to bear in mind, yours is one side of the story - I bet if the other one was posted on here it would read completely different.

[Bluefish]

crossing patrol people just don't walk out in front of cars, they are responsible people who are 'vetted' to do a responsible job involving the safety of children.


HA HA, yes i admit they maybe have to do a one day course,and i am not saying it is not important, that does not stop SOME of them being muppets, or just having a bad day.

[bris]

I would make a counter claim, if the lolipop man walked into the road without looking forcing you to do an emergency stop then his supervisers should be informed as its children he is looking after. If he was already in the road and you were not paying attenion then the nip should stand.
I would write to his employers making a complaint against him and use that as my defence.

[Red Herring]

Ok:

Sections of the Road Traffic ACt 1988 to which the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 applies:

S1,2,3,22,28,29,35,36. Section 3 being the one which we are discussing - Careless driving (commonly know as without due care and attention.)

Methods of Giving Warning:

At the time of the offence. If the offender is stopped at the time of the offence then you would give the notice of intended prosecution at the time : Ie "you will be reported for the consideration of a prosecution blah blah blah"

By Service within 14 days. NIP would be sent through the post WITHIN 14 days.

Copy complaint: normally not used unless offender is in custody.

On occasions, no warning given. Although normally in unusual circumstance where the offender was not traced or had given false name and address.

These are of course, based on the Scottish Law interpretation of the Road Traffic Act, although mostly the same, due to our court system being different, there may be differences when it comes to the service of documents etc.

I do know that on occasions the NIP may not be served within 14 days if enquiries have been ongoing to trace the driver of the vehicle. as such, it will be served as soo as the driver is known. I don't know the ins and outs of your case and as such, I cannot comment on it individually. If your solicitor is saying that then I believe that he will be right. The law is not black and white due to there being so many different circumstances and incidents.

Now look up Section 2 (1) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Instead of telling me to do it, why dont you do it?

I see you already have. And it was completely irrelevant to the question Ralph asked of me. He didn't have an accident and we are discussing his incident.

[Red Herring]

Actually my reply was very relevant. You stated that regardless of the offence an NIP has to be served within 14 days if not done verbally at the time. I pointed out that the offence is relevant, only certain offences that are listed (including Sect 3 careless driving) require an NIP and one does not need to be sent if the allegation involves an accident.
I also explained that the definition of an accident for these purposes is wider than what most people recognize as such (ie: you don't need to have hit someone/something, and it may even be that Ralph is unaware that an accident occurred.
There may well be differences between English and Scottish law, but in England and Wales it certainly is black and white when it comes to an NIP.

[P-J]

Hi Ralph

Regardless as too whether it was luck or judgement a commendation for stopping in time!

As I stated in another thread the law despite what people believe is actually quite fair. The first thing to remember is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty (the backbone of British law) and so will be treated throughout any legal process as such unless a decision is made based upon ALL evidence that you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt which usually occurs within the confines of a legal establishment ie. a court (there are exceptions not relevant here). Dont look at a NIP as a guilty accusation but more as a formal way of saying....

"Hey buddy we've been told that this incident has occurred and we will be looking into it. Give us a call as soon as possible, OK"

So with that in mind you will have the option of attending court and providing the evidence you have to them to allow the magistrates to come to a comprehensive and fully educated decision based on all the facts.

Due care and attention is an umbigious accusation ranging from using a mobile phone to rear ending another car. I seriously hope that even within the confines of the law that someone would see sense and bin this one preferring to give you words of advice, which i would recommend you take, rather than the heavy reins of justice!

The law can seem very complex at times but before you go spending cash on lawyers speak to the police force that have issued the NIP to you. They will explain eveything to you in plain english and i am sure you will be pleasantly surprised. They deal with this day in day out after all, you wont incriminate yourself by talking to them and they will assist were possible.

One last thing. I would get onto the council about this. It is ridiculous for there to be a crossing there and parked cars! A recipe for disaster as so nearly happened! Inform the council providing the pics and the situation you are now in adding that you feel they are responsible for the safety of yourself and other road users etc. Ensure you get a response back. It may be evidentually useful.


Hope this relaxes you a little. Feel free to PM me.

Cheers

[Red Herring]

Hi Ralph, there's been a few PM's flying around on this topic, mainly around the validity of the NIP. One thing I forgot to ask, are you the registered keeper of the vehicle involved (in other words did the NIP come straight to you) or did it have to go to someone else first?

[-Ralph-]

Hi Ralph, there's been a few PM's flying around on this topic, mainly around the validity of the NIP. One thing I forgot to ask, are you the registered keeper of the vehicle involved (in other words did the NIP come straight to you) or did it have to go to someone else first?

Yes, I'm the registered keeper, albeit the car was registered to my permanent address in Scotland with mail being redirected to my rented property. Kilted Ginger has been in regularly to keep an eye on the place and check for any mail that slipped through the net. I received the NIP via redirected mail 4 days after the date on the NIP, which was just over 6 weeks after the date of the offence. Sure as can be that this was the first NIP. If there was an earlier one, it wasn't received, though that doesn't mean an earlier one wasn't served.

I'm not questioning if the NIP stands under the 14 day rule, 'cos if they have served an earlier one in time and I didn't receive it then it does still stand. I was more questioning if the 14 day rule applies to driving without due care.

[Red Herring]

Thanks, how long after the incident is the NIP dated?

[-Ralph-]

Thanks, how long after the incident is the NIP dated?

Date of incident was 24th April, date of NIP was 8th June. Just over six weeks.

[Red Herring]

In that case they will need to show that an "accident" occurred at the time or immediately after the incident and that it was as a result of your vehicle on a road. It's worth noting that there is a presumption by the courts that the NIP would have been served correctly, it will be up to you to challenge it. Should you be summonsed then definitely get some good legal representation, it will be worth it.

[-Ralph-]

Interesting development though, my wife noticed in the last week before the schools broke up there was a new lollipop person (though maybe just holidays) who wasn't waiting behind the hedge, but at the roadside, and today I drove past and the rectangular information sign below the children crossing warning triangle that is grey in the photo's has now been replaced with a "crossing patrol" sign.

Would the police have passed my photo's to the council?

Hopefully soon they'll have painted some double yellows, which is what it really needs.

[-Ralph-]

Hopefully soon they'll have painted some double yellows, which is what it really needs.

Update on this, in addition to updating the sign to make it a 'School Crossing Patrol' sign and not just a 'Children Crossing' sign (which can be put anywhere there is child traffic, such as a play park), they also painted single yellows a week before the kids came back off the summer holidays.

[Red Herring]

Some good has come of it then. I take it you haven't heard anything more about the NIP?

[Nostrils]

Ralph, I am sure you are not alone in the actions you faced at the crossing, some neighbours have said they have faced similar scenarios but without an pending proscecution. I think the local authority have done good by updating the sign and yellow lines - If you have the time, perhaps persuing double yellow line issues with your local councillor / MP. Well done so far and good luck with the NIP

[yorkie_chris]

Just a thought that it may be worth getting some snaps of the new road markings. It could be argued that this change indicates there was some problem with the layout before and hence you did not have any warning of the hazard.

Also regarding ringing up old bill about a NIP, I don't think you could incriminate yourself at all that way since you wouldn't be speaking under caution. But I could be wrong...

[-Ralph-]

Some good has come of it then. I take it you haven't heard anything more about the NIP?

Can anybody believe this is going to court ???!!!!

Today I received a "Notification of new hearing date" letter, saying that this would be heard in court later this month.

I haven't heard or received anything since I sent back my NIP response on 30th June, when they were also notified of the my new address.

[G]

Just a thought that it may be worth getting some snaps of the new road markings. It could be argued that this change indicates there was some problem with the layout before and hence you did not have any warning of the hazard.

Also regarding ringing up old bill about a NIP, I don't think you could incriminate yourself at all that way since you wouldn't be speaking under caution. But I could be wrong...

+1 on this.

They are admitting there was a problem... hence not your fault.

I know of an individual that was done for speeding, the signs on the stretch of road were blocked by foliage, he got photos for proof. They then trimmed the foliage, and he got photos of that as well.

Went to court and it got throw out pretty quickly.

[-Ralph-]

+1 on this.

They are admitting there was a problem... hence not your fault.

I know of an individual that was done for speeding, the signs on the stretch of road were blocked by foliage, he got photos for proof. They then trimmed the foliage, and he got photos of that as well.

Went to court and it got throw out pretty quickly.

OK, I'll get photos of all the new stuff that has been done tomorrow.

[G]

It's sounds rediculous I know, but the solicitor may dismiss some of the opinions on here as stupid, but they are the type who think they know best and don't like input.

[Tiger 55]

Can anybody believe this is going to court ???!!!!
I believe it. Give 'em hell mate.

[JamesMio]

I believe it. Give 'em hell mate.

Likewise, oh and likewise!!

[fastdruid]

The first 'trial' will just pretty much as to if you plead Guilty or Not. There is a chance that it might get it thrown out at this stage if you plead NOT Guilty. IME the CPS don't even bother to read the case until it gets to court.

Druid

[Luckypants]

There is a chance that it might get it thrown out at this stage if you plead Guilty.

Surely you mean NOT GUILTY?

[fastdruid]

Surely you mean NOT GUILTY?

Ooops :-)

Druid

[Red Herring]

Can anybody believe this is going to court ???!!!!

Today I received a "Notification of new hearing date" letter, saying that this would be heard in court later this month.

I haven't heard or received anything since I sent back my NIP response on 30th June, when they were also notified of the my new address.

To be perfectly honest, no i can't. Are you saying that the only correspondence you have received is the NIP and now the summons?

You've had no other contact, no interview, no disclosure, no anything?

There's something missing from this case, it's called evidence!

[-Ralph-]

To be perfectly honest, no i can't. Are you saying that the only correspondence you have received is the NIP and now the summons?

You've had no other contact, no interview, no disclosure, no anything?

There's something missing from this case, it's called evidence!

The only correspondence that I have received was the NIP and a Notice of New Date of Hearing this week.

I collected a copy of the original summons, supposedly sent on the 16th October, but not received and the statement of evidence presented to the court, from the Criminal Justice Unit at Solihull police station yesterday at the request of my solicitor.

There are two witness statements, one from the School Crossing Patrol, which is actually quite fair overall, but he says he followed the normal procedure for crossing, which he didn't (he can't say that without loosing his job!), and he says he could not judge my speed but thought I was over 30mph, he kept all detail of the incident very brief. Given that he didn't see me at all until I was in an emergency stop I fail to see how he could judge my speed. Whilst he didn't lie about our conversation he omitted a lot of detail to cast a favourable slant.

The other witness statement is from an angry parent, who I'm not actually sure even saw the whole thing, and started shouting at me across the street about a minute after the event, about "arguing" with the school crossing patrol. Since we were not actually arguing at all, but discussing the possibility of getting parking restrictions painted, I rolled up my window and ignored him, turning back to my passenger side window to continue my conversation with the school crossing patrol. Probably not the best response and I probably angered him further, but I couldn't deal with him shouting at me at the time. He makes emotional statements throughout the statement, saying things like "If a child had been crossing without the crossing patrol, they would certainly have been hit", well I did stop in time, and I fail to see how the age of the person crossing alters my ability to stop in a given distance. The statement was taken 7 weeks after the event. I have described the statement to my solicitor "a large proportion of this statement is pure fabrication".

The police have taken lots of photos of the site in December, long after the new parking restriction linage and new "patrol" signage and showing the crossing patrol following normal procedure and submitted these to the court as "evidence". The pictures are nothing like what the landscape looked like in April, including the thickness of the summer foliage the crossing patrol was hiding behind.

My explanation letter and photos returned with my NIP have had reference made to them in the police statement, but have not been submitted in the evidence.

Nobody has attempted to interview me or my wife who was sitting in the passenger seat.

I have relayed your and MBK's comments about the NIP to my solicitor, quoting the relevant sections you have given me and and asked him to check it out again.

Thanks very much everyone for your comments and help so far.

[Owenski]

Am I reading that correctly?
The police are pretending the sings/lining were all existing on the day of the incident?

Yet you have pictures taken after the accident which clearly show this not to be the case.

I feel for you mate someones going to get royally shafted with this one, I just hope its not you.

EDIT:
Just adding this after looking at your pics on Page 1.
I dont know if its relevant but every little helps; Doesnt the highway code say something along the lines of when crossing a road you stand at the kerb edge. Obviously for your visibilty of the approaching traffic but also so you can let drivers know you do intend to cross. However if there are parked cars then you are to move out from the kerb to be inline with the cars?

I only mention it becuase if this guy started from the kerb and marched out with his stick no doubt distracted by conversation with the children and parents. He wont have been able to see over a 4x4 and people carrier unless he's very tall. So I'd put money on that his view was also obscured by the parked cars and in fact he hadnt seen you approaching. I'd side that your actions prevented an accident that his lack of concentration nearly caused.

[yorkie_chris]

Can you get onto local council for records of when the road markings were changed?

[-Ralph-]

Am I reading that correctly?
The police are pretending the sings/lining were all existing on the day of the incident?

Yet you have pictures taken after the accident which clearly show this not to be the case.

I feel for you mate someones going to get royally shafted with this one, I just hope its not you.

EDIT:
Just adding this after looking at your pics on Page 1.
I dont know if its relevant but every little helps; Doesnt the highway code say something along the lines of when crossing a road you stand at the kerb edge. Obviously for your visibilty of the approaching traffic but also so you can let drivers know you do intend to cross. However if there are parked cars then you are to move out from the kerb to be inline with the cars?

I only mention it becuase if this guy started from the kerb and marched out with his stick no doubt distracted by conversation with the children and parents. He wont have been able to see over a 4x4 and people carrier unless he's very tall. So I'd put money on that his view was also obscured by the parked cars and in fact he hadnt seen you approaching. I'd side that your actions prevented an accident that his lack of concentration nearly caused.

Can you get onto local council for records of when the road markings were changed?

Although the police admit the lines have been painted since the incident, they highlight in their statement that the signage shown in their photos clearly states that there is a school crossing patrol ahead. If you look at my photos you will see that this is not the case. As far as I understand it, the "Children Crossing" sign does not denote anything more than a likelihood of children crossing, for instance the presence of a playpark, until such time as the "Patrol" sign is added below it. You can see on my photo's that this is greyed out. When you zoom into the 10 megapixel originals you can see that the Patrol lettering is actually underneath this very slightly see-though grey film or paint. The police statement suggested my photos had been "conveniently cropped" to exclude this signage!

You are absolutely correct that the school crossing patrol did not see me approach, he walked out in front of me, and then caught me out of the corner of his eye after he was right in front of me, I hit the brakes, he **** himself.

[Owenski]

Although the police admit the lines have been painted since the incident, they highlight in their statement that the signage shown in their photos clearly states that there is a school crossing patrol ahead. If you look at my photos you will see that this is not the case. As far as I understand it, the "Children Crossing" sign does not denote anything more than a likelihood of children crossing, for instance the presence of a playpark, until such time as the "Patrol" sign is added below it. You can see on my photo's that this is greyed out. When you zoom into the 10 megapixel originals you can see that the Patrol lettering is actually underneath this very slightly see-though grey film or paint. The police statement suggested my photos had been "conveniently cropped" to exclude this signage!

You are absolutely correct that the school crossing patrol did not see me approach, he walked out in front of me, and then caught me out of the corner of his eye after he was right in front of me, I hit the brakes, he **** himself.

Does he admit to that in his statement/say something to suggest that was the case? If so that'd be my angle ie, you were approaching and through local knowlage knew there was a patrol at that location but on rounding the parked cars assumed that if he was intending to cross he would have by now made his intention clear (ie stood where he had a clear view of traffic). Therefore him striding out into the highway is his negligence, its just a good job you were paying attention and were able to react quickly enough.

EDIT:
Obviously Im not a legal person or anything im purely speculating so if you want me to delete that from your thread just let me know.

[-Ralph-]

Does he admit to that in his statement/say something to suggest that was the case? If so that'd be my angle ie, you were approaching and through local knowlage knew there was a patrol at that location but on rounding the parked cars assumed that if he was intending to cross he would have by now made his intention clear (ie stood where he had a clear view of traffic). Therefore him striding out into the highway is his negligence, its just a good job you were paying attention and were able to react quickly enough.

EDIT:
Obviously Im not a legal person or anything im purely speculating so if you want me to delete that from your thread just let me know.

No need to delete anything mate, your entitled to your angle on it and if I ever wanted to present this thread as date stamped evidence of my thoughts at the time, whatever anybody else has written is completely irrelevant in court as they are not witnesses, nor are they on trial.

I don't want to say anything to the court which is not true, and given that I am not guilty, I shouldn't have to! If you start telling lies not only are you lying under oath, you leave yourself open to be tripped up under cross examination. Best policy is to use the truth 100%. I didn't know the patrol was there, I had only just moved to the area and it was the first time I had driven that road at that time in the morning.

Therefore him striding out into the highway is his negligence, its just a good job you were paying attention and were able to react quickly enough.

And this is certainly the truth!

[davepreston]

yc's right get a list and dates of what has been done to the area including what signs were removed and put up

[fastdruid]

I don't want to say anything to the court which is not true, and given that I am not guilty, I shouldn't have to! If you start telling lies not only are you lying under oath, you leave yourself open to be tripped up under cross examination. Best policy is to use the truth 100%. I didn't know the patrol was there, I had only just moved to the area and it was the first time I had driven that road at that time in the morning.

And this is certainly the truth!

+1 This is how I won my case, I told the truth, the police lied and tripped themselves up.

While I wouldn't suggest you do it, the only lies you can really do are lies by omission, sometimes for example if the prosecution say something that makes you out to be better than you actually were you can not correct them[1].

Druid

[1] Like the police estimated my wheelie to be 20m. ;-)

[Tiger 55]

My explanation letter and photos returned with my NIP have had reference made to them in the police statement, but have not been submitted in the evidence..
Well no, they wouldn't be would they? The last thing they're going to enter as evidence is a photo supporting your position. When your solicitor produces it on the other hand, I think the Beak will raise an eyebrow at the Prosecution...

You will need an expert witness to testify that the image hasn't been cropped or otherwise altered and that it was taken as per the time stamp, but that what's your paying you solicitor to sort out.

[sunshine]

as far as the photos goes if you used an old camera with film you can send the negatives in and they can still be used as evidence but digital photos need an expert witness to look at. (from a short course in forensic photography)

[Red Herring]

It would be far easier to just ask the prosecution to disclose the photographs they have referred to in the statements. As the statements are dated that should solve the problem. In the event of them not being able to produce the photographs they're not exactly going to be in a very strong position to question your copies are they?

[fastdruid]

as far as the photos goes if you used an old camera with film you can send the negatives in and they can still be used as evidence but digital photos need an expert witness to look at. (from a short course in forensic photography)

Nah, only if they really want to be awkward about it, I found the health and safety website quite readable for what to expect in court (admittedly written from the 'other' side) and what can and can't be used as evidence.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/physical-real.htm

4. Digital images printed through the use of a computer printer are now widely used in evidence. If the defence seek to challenge such evidence on the ground that it has been tampered with, you will need to put evidence before the court to show that the images have not been altered.

I personally would send the prosecution a CD with the images on it along with a s.9 witness statement (at least 7 days prior to the court date) stating that you intend to use them. The prosecution then have to object, *or* you can use them as evidence.

Druid

[Red Herring]

I know you want to fight this on the basis that you didn't drive without due care and attention, but don't overlook the options of arguing a technicality. If it took them 6 weeks to serve an NIP on you (ie: more than the stipulated 14 days) then they will either have to show that they did serve one on the registered keeper within that period, or that an accident occurred, I know there wasn't an impact, and technically there doesn't have to be for an "accident: to occur, however they will need to show more than the fact that you simply braked sharply. Did anyone have to jump out of the way or take avoiding action and such like? If you're got a good brief they should be looking into this.

[-Ralph-]

Nah, only if they really want to be awkward about it, I found the health and safety website quite readable for what to expect in court (admittedly written from the 'other' side) and what can and can't be used as evidence.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/enforcementguide/court/physical-real.htm



I personally would send the prosecution a CD with the images on it along with a s.9 witness statement (at least 7 days prior to the court date) stating that you intend to use them. The prosecution then have to object, *or* you can use them as evidence.

Druid

I know you want to fight this on the basis that you didn't drive without due care and attention, but don't overlook the options of arguing a technicality. If it took them 6 weeks to serve an NIP on you (ie: more than the stipulated 14 days) then they will either have to show that they did serve one on the registered keeper within that period, or that an accident occurred, I know there wasn't an impact, and technically there doesn't have to be for an "accident: to occur, however they will need to show more than the fact that you simply braked sharply. Did anyone have to jump out of the way or take avoiding action and such like? If you're got a good brief they should be looking into this.

Thanks for these guys. I have already asked my solicitor to look into the NIP issue again and passed RH and MBK's comments on regarding the requirement for an "accident".

My solicitor is vacating the hearing set for January and this will simply be used to enter a not guilty plea and advise which witnesses need to attend court. The actual hearing is expected to be a further four weeks away after this.

Thanks for this advice about sending the photo's on CD. I suspect my solicitor will suggest this as we definitely will be using these photo's in evidence, but if he does not I will certainly ask him about it.

[-Ralph-]

Well no, they wouldn't be would they? The last thing they're going to enter as evidence is a photo supporting your position. When your solicitor produces it on the other hand, I think the Beak will raise an eyebrow at the Prosecution...

But the prosecution has seen the photo's, so if they know the beak will raise an eyebrow at them when we produce them, why would they risk loosing credibility in court? Surely either better to recognise it weakens the case and not bother with a prosecution at all, or give the beak all the facts so that he can dismiss it if he wants to, and they then don't get criticised for not prosecuting. Trying to hide the photo's won't do them any favours. As RH said earlier they have a responsibility to carry out a fair and impartial investigation and collect the best evidence. By not interviewing me or my wife and not submitting my letter or photo's in the evidence, they haven't done that here.

[Tiger 55]

...they have a responsibility to carry out a fair and impartial investigation and collect the best evidence.
Your faith in the system is touching mate. The prosecution will fail in that responsibility because they are looking to convict you, fair doesn't enter into it.

I don't think they are hiding your photos as such, just playing the odds. Odds are your solicitor has 20 cases on the go and wouldn't recognise most of his clients if they stood up in his soup, odds are he wont submit the photos in advance and odds are you wont arrive in court with an expert witness.

That nothwithstanding, the big fly in your ointment is the witness. If they testify they saw the whole thing and come off as credible, you're in trouble. A big +1 to RH's suggestion you try to get off on a technicality.

[fastdruid]

As RH said earlier they have a responsibility to carry out a fair and impartial investigation and collect the best evidence. By not interviewing me or my wife and not submitting my letter or photo's in the evidence, they haven't done that here.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Way too much faith in the police and CPS.

All they want is numbers, they will not bother to 'investigate' or look again until probably the morning of the case if that.

In my case it came out that had the police got the speed limit correct I would have been offered a course, as however there was "excess speed" it went all the way to court. This is despite pointing out at the *first* hearing that the speed limit given was incorrect. The police then took a drive on the *morning* of the case, noted that the speed limit was 60[1] and not 40 as they had previously stated and tried to keep quiet about it.

Druid

[1] Probably, I'm *still* not sure if the initial part is 30mph or 70mph, the signage is awful.

[speedplay]

Looking at the photos, could you not also contest the location of the crossing with the local council on the grounds that it is an unsafe location? I.e. on a bend between 2 junctions with no restriction on parking?

[Fizzy Fish]

Good luck with gettting this sorted!

BTW if you do need anything from the council, send them a 'Freedom of Information' request, which they must repond to within 20 days with all relevant materials (there are a few exceptions, but I can't imagine that they will apply in this case).

e.g. ask for works schedule for all road signage and markings for that location in the last year, plus any relevant photographs before and after the works

Info is here:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/what_we_cover/freedom_of_information/the_basics.aspx

The council website may also have a request form/section devoted to FOI requests as well. Make sure you quote 'FOI' in your email/letter.

[Red Herring]

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Way too much faith in the police and CPS.

All they want is numbers, they will not bother to 'investigate' or look again until probably the morning of the case if that.......+



Hi Fastdruid, I appreciate your experience entitles you to a rather cynical view but it is (I think) a fairly limited experience. With over 20 years experience of prosecuting for just this type of offence I really would like to offer you some assurance it's not about numbers and the police do like to get to the bottom of things. As your experience showed they do on occasion get it wrong, and even though I don't know all the facts about this case I do know that something here isn't right, but just as in your case I am equally confident that it will come good in the end.
I'm not saying it's right, it shouldn't happen, but I don't think it fair to cast dispersions about an entire profession on such limited experience.

[-Ralph-]

Your faith in the system is touching mate. The prosecution will fail in that responsibility because they are looking to convict you, fair doesn't enter into it.

I don't think they are hiding your photos as such, just playing the odds. Odds are your solicitor has 20 cases on the go and wouldn't recognise most of his clients if they stood up in his soup, odds are he wont submit the photos in advance and odds are you wont arrive in court with an expert witness.

That nothwithstanding, the big fly in your ointment is the witness. If they testify they saw the whole thing and come off as credible, you're in trouble. A big +1 to RH's suggestion you try to get off on a technicality.

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Way too much faith in the police and CPS.

As RH said earlier they have a responsibility to carry out a fair and impartial investigation and collect the best evidence. By not interviewing me or my wife and not submitting my letter or photo's in the evidence, they haven't done that here.

Don't think my faith in the system has anything to do with it mate, just highlighting what they SHOULD by the book be doing and HAVEN'T. It's not that I'm particularly surprised that they haven't, and having not much experience of dealing with the police, it's not like I particularly had any expectations. I know that in this case they haven't done it by the book, RH is telling us that isn't the norm and so is my solicitor, but I can't really comment on that either way.

[G]

Well if you watch the police programmes on TV etc

Someone can steal a car... go on a joyride... break the speed limits... dangerous drive... whilst drunk... with no licence... or insurance


THEN GET AWAY WITH IT THROUGH LACK OF EVIDENCE

so hopefull you will be fine, fingers crossed for you.