Prosecution for driving without due care and attention

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.

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

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

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

Cos he's a biker!

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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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.

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' One man's 'well short' is another's 'near miss'.....

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.

Originally Posted by Biker Biggles

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

Originally Posted by carty

Cos he's a biker!

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

Traitor.

...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!

Ralph, in response to the question asked:

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

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.