its ok to drive badly! official!

[busasean]

driving back home from walking the dog last week when the 3rd car in front of me slows approaching a junction on the right. the little metro behind slows and stops but the silly woman in the car in front of me doesnt even brake and slams straight into the metro pushing it into the car waiting to turn right. i'm right behind all this and can see it all unfolding so i put my hazzards on and wait for the bang. after i've stopped and checked no-one is seriously hurt, i call the police. the driver who has rammed the other 2 cars doesnt seem particularly upset but has said she didnt see them stop. the police arrive and i explain what i saw, and tell the traffic officer that the responsible driver should at the very least be given a b*ll*king, if not she should be reported for driving without due care. this wasnt just a little shunt as the metros side windows were broken by the drivers doors being forced past the pillars. but no, they are told to exchange details and thats it. i can only assume that its ok to ram other cars now and hurt people so long as youre not speeding, or dont have an illegal exhaust or illegal number plate. .......just in the process of putting a complaint in against police traffic officer who dealt......

[Jabba]

. .......just in the process of putting a complaint in against police traffic officer who dealt......

Might have been acting on orders/local policy from higher up, perhaps?

Could also be that their dividing line between taking action or not (and there has to be one, I should think) is whether or not anyone was hurt in the incident.

Either way, making your views known is a good thing.

[BillyC]

Yup... I admit that it's absurd!

If you hit the car infront, either by being too close, or not seeing them stop - then that's not enough care and attention in my book!

This is why we have licence points - to highlight the licences of drivers whose skills are sub standard. It's a pity that some police don't see it this way, and only endorse when no accident (general speeding), or serious injury is the case.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more rediculous it seems. They endorse licences where they can make money, in the name of accident prevention, but they don't endorse licences, when the accident has actually happened due to poor skills and they have all the evidence they need! :twisted:

[coombest]

Aah yes, sounds strangely familiar to me!!! :lol: :evil: :roll:

You have to remember that they were not speeding, so they were driving perfectly well! Perhaps it was even the case that the driver of the Metro was watching her speedo - for safety's sake - at the time of the accident! If so, she should be commended! :evil: :evil: :evil:

[Nick762]

Sounds like another ludicrous example of punishing the consequence not the act. If she didn't see the car in front stop, who's to say next time she won't see the child in the road in front of her. The same set of conditions but a potentially totally different and tragic outcome. We should have a consistent approach to poor driving whatever the outcome.

I'm not condoning poor driving but remember the Selby rail crash? A driver driving while fatigued in a freak set of circumstances caused a massive accident and was charged with as I recall, ten counts of causing death by dangerous driving and sentenced to five years. Had he lost control maybe 100 metres either side of where he did the outcome may have been quite different and he would probably just have got a bollocking or points on his licence!

That is just in my opinion plain daft. It is neither fair nor justice for anyone.

But then who says that life is either fair or just...

[BillyC]

Nick, I think that in that particular case, he'd not only been up all night and was heavily fatigued, but he was also texting on his bloody mobile phone! :evil:

[Nick762]

Nick, I think that in that particular case, he'd not only been up all night and was heavily fatigued, but he was also texting on his bloody mobile phone! :evil:

Yes, true.

However had the accident occured anywhere else I'm willing to bet he would still have got off a lot more lightly if he had been the only vehicle involved.

[Mervin]

Police do not take advice from members of the public in such circumstances so I wouldnt take it personally.

If the 'victim' in this case wants to prosecute for careless, then it's up to them to speak to police.

It's very difficult to secure a prosecution if police did not witness the crash and all they have is a witness statement.

The copper followed procedure by getting all parties to exchange details. If there were any injuries it would have been different.

[Nick762]

If there were any injuries it would have been different.

This is the bit that gets me... call me pedantic or whatever but surely dangerous driving is dangerous driving whether it results in injury or not!

[Biker Biggles]

Im very much with the pedants on this.You dont ultimatly improve driving standards by looking at the consequenses of bad driving.You have to look at the driving standards accross the board.

[Anonymous]

This is the bit that gets me... call me pedantic or whatever but surely dangerous driving is dangerous driving whether it results in injury or not!

Spot On, Nick! See also the thread on the "not guilty" 159mph copper! :evil:

[Muttley]

On a similar note, As I was riding into work yesterday I ended up following a police motorcycle, at one point in the journey a van several cars ahead made a blatant illegal right turn (they had to wait in the middle of the junction, with indicator flashing, just past the very clear no right turn sign). I was thinking that the police bike might "have a word" but no, just kept on going.

I kinda got a bit annoyed, mainly because I wanted the coppa' out of my way so I could get back up to speed. :)