Prosecution for driving without due care and attention

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

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.

Originally Posted by carty

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.

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!

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 so as not to derail.

Originally Posted by muffles

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?!

Originally Posted by carty

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.

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.

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.