PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Careless in Scotland, Careless Driving Charge Single Vehicle Collision
Del76
post Sat, 4 Feb 2017 - 20:39
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 26 May 2015
Member No.: 77,427



Dear All I'm back with a problem so need to post again although I'm always lurking.

I've had a few days to mull this over and I'm now throwing it open to those much more knowledgable than me.
A few days ago I was involved in a single vehicle collision with a Dry Stone Wall in Scotland.
The circumstances were as such I was driving a 3.5t medium wheelbase van loaded at the time it was 06:30 dark and weather was wet A class road with central markings but no white lines marking the edge of the carriageway making it difficult to differentiate road from verge on a wet dark morning, tight right hand bend with broken white line even though it has no visibility around the bend which I had negotiated. On exiting the bend a timber hauler was approaching the bend to them it was left hand and stealing some of my side of the road. I sharply moved left to avoid the oncoming lights and put my wheels onto the verge. The verge was about 3 foot wide with a 2 -3 foot Dry stone wall which then had a 4-5 foot drop down to the field.

The verge being wet pulled me in and I parked the left hand side of the van into the Dry Stone Wall knocking over about 40-50 foot of it. Damage to my vehicle was all on the lower left hand side both wheels bore the brunt with burst tyres and body work damage to the rear lower panel behind the wheels. There was no frontal impact and the airbag did not deploy. I ran along the wall and came to rest on the verge with half of the van in the carriageway facing the correct direction I suppose I should count myself lucky that I didn't topple over into the field. No injuries were sustained.

The timber hauler had carried on his merry way.

I called my insurance arranged recovery and called Police Scotland to let them know I had caused damage to the Stone Wall. I then got out stood on the bend and warned traffic to slow down for an hour until the police arrived.
An hour later Police turned up and asked me to sit in the car. I handed over my licence and they checked my details.
Before asking what had happened they said they would issuing me a fixed penalty for careless driving as despite the poor conditions nobody else had hit the wall.
Anyway gave my statement as per the above they went to do a breath test but there machine wouldn't initialise so they both agreed I hadn't been drinking and were happy to forgo it.
I said I didn't believe I had been driving carelessly to which they replied there was two options.
I could accept a fixed penalty or the could put it forward to the Prosecutor Fiscal. It was force policy that all single vehicle collisions had to be careless.

There was no other witnesses to the incident and no examination was made at the scene once I was released they went off to another job.
I've returned at the same time this morning this time with a dash cam to video the approach.

I've replayed it 100 times in my mind to see what I would of done differently and I still would choose the verge over a 44t Timber Hauler drivers side to drivers side collision as there would only be one winner. Was I careless by mounting the verge? I don't believe so? Was I careless for hitting the Stone wall? In normal circumstances yes I would say I was but fully laden on wet ground avoiding a collision I'd say I was unlucky not careless, although I'm happy to be corrected.

I'm fully expecting them to go ahead with it as it's force policy so do I need to contact a solicitor? I know I could of taken the easy option of a 3pt fixed penalty and £100 fine but I really couldn't accept I was careless although reading the guidelines it does seem a very broad spectrum.
So I shall throw it open to you good people and see if principles have shot me in the foot.
For the full picture I hold c+e and cpc Van is a year old and had new front brakes and front tyres the previous day I have three points from two years for speeding at 71 on a dual carriageway in a van limit of 60. For this reason I drive in Scotland with the speed limiter set to 50mph on single carriageways in Scotland.
I'm being deliberately vague with location as of yet I've not received a summons. Anything else you'd like to know let me know.
Kind regards.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 74)
Advertisement
post Sat, 4 Feb 2017 - 20:39
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
The Rookie
post Tue, 6 Jun 2017 - 14:53
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,198
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Justice served it seems (though you will be out the cost of the solicitor).


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Del76
post Tue, 6 Jun 2017 - 15:24
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 26 May 2015
Member No.: 77,427



Yes out the cost of a solicitor. However I would of had 3 wasted trips across the border. He also seems to of been able to discuss the case directly with the PF.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Del76
post Sun, 11 Jun 2017 - 20:52
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 26 May 2015
Member No.: 77,427



Ok the finer points for anyone interested.
From case law of a bus leaving the road it was determined that leaving the road was a neutral occurrence could neither be proven to be careless or proved not to be. The cause of leaving the road is where careless may or may not lie.
With no proof any carelessness had occurred PF abandoned case.
Although it does go to show that when the police say they are coming to assist it really means we are coming to see if we can get an easy boost to our enforcement statistics.
I had a simple case which I never thought would get prosecuted, if ever I have any further dealings with the police unfortunately I shall be saying No comment and only giving a statement once having spoken to a solicitor.
They wonder why they are losing the support of the majority of law abiding citizens. I would stress it is the minority that tarnishes the whole.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sun, 11 Jun 2017 - 21:48
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Del76 @ Sun, 11 Jun 2017 - 21:52) *
if ever I have any further dealings with the police unfortunately I shall be saying No comment and only giving a statement once having spoken to a solicitor.

Sadly, that's how a lot of police interactions end up.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Del76
post Sun, 11 Jun 2017 - 21:57
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 26 May 2015
Member No.: 77,427



It is a shame They used to be human with a sense of humour who were able to apply common sense. When I was young they were respected I'd never of dreamed I would have to be wary of giving them a statement without the advice of a solicitor.
It appears that as they are so used to dealing with the worst in society they now tar the rest of society with the same brush.
This is a vicious circle and leads to the rest of society no longer respecting or assisting them in their duties and the whole concept falls down.
Anyway case closed I can't say justice was done but a misjustice was avoided. Feel free to move to the completed cases and thank you for all the assistance.

Del
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Mon, 12 Jun 2017 - 16:17
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (Del76 @ Sun, 11 Jun 2017 - 21:52) *
Ok the finer points for anyone interested.
From case law of a bus leaving the road it was determined that leaving the road was a neutral occurrence could neither be proven to be careless or proved not to be. The cause of leaving the road is where careless may or may not lie.
With no proof any carelessness had occurred PF abandoned case.
Although it does go to show that when the police say they are coming to assist it really means we are coming to see if we can get an easy boost to our enforcement statistics.
I had a simple case which I never thought would get prosecuted, if ever I have any further dealings with the police unfortunately I shall be saying No comment and only giving a statement once having spoken to a solicitor.
They wonder why they are losing the support of the majority of law abiding citizens. I would stress it is the minority that tarnishes the whole.


I think you're being particularly harsh on the police.
Force policy that single vehicle collisions are either FPN'd or reported for court.
Reporting you to court was not an admission of guilt, nor was it proof you'd been careless.
Rightfully so, the PF dismissed the case based on the available evidence when it came to it.
I think it is reasonable to expect someone to go to court and explain why their vehicle has left the road, especially when damage has been caused.


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Mon, 12 Jun 2017 - 16:38
Post #67


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (ohnoes @ Mon, 12 Jun 2017 - 17:17) *
I think it is reasonable to expect someone to go to court and explain why their vehicle has left the road, especially when damage has been caused.

Yes, obviously people should be charged with no thought as to whether they've actually committed an offence. Perhaps hospital and care home workers should be hauled into court on manslaughter charges every time somebody in their care dies, too, just so they can explain why they're not guilty?


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 12 Jun 2017 - 18:45
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Does Scotland not have a code test?


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 09:26
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (Fredd @ Mon, 12 Jun 2017 - 17:38) *
QUOTE (ohnoes @ Mon, 12 Jun 2017 - 17:17) *
I think it is reasonable to expect someone to go to court and explain why their vehicle has left the road, especially when damage has been caused.

Yes, obviously people should be charged with no thought as to whether they've actually committed an offence. Perhaps hospital and care home workers should be hauled into court on manslaughter charges every time somebody in their care dies, too, just so they can explain why they're not guilty?



Using your example/logic, the coroner shouldn't investigate any sudden or unexplained deaths because the majority of medical staff do a great job.
Being summonsed to court is not equivalent to a conviction so lets not pretend it is anything more than a requirement to attend and put your side of the story across.

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 09:27


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 10:48
Post #70


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



I suggest you have a look at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Prosecution Code (PDF); you'll see that there are a number of hurdles to clear before someone can be dragged into court, which is (rightly) treated as a considerably more serious step than you seem to think.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 12:13
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (Fredd @ Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 11:48) *
I suggest you have a look at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service Prosecution Code (PDF); you'll see that there are a number of hurdles to clear before someone can be dragged into court, which is (rightly) treated as a considerably more serious step than you seem to think.


Police officer cannot be expected to know specific case law at the road side and follows force policy of reporting the event with the facts as they are known.
Op goes to court where case law determines he has no case to answer.
I still do not see the issue.
p.s. You do not need try try and convince me otherwise, I agree that you have a different point of view and I agree going through the legal system is a worrying time and no the system is not perfect.

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 12:14


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 12:58
Post #72


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,205
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



You seem to be missing the point that the police officer doesn't decide at the roadside whether the case goes to court. That decision is made later, on the basis of a formal code, when issues such as the law, precedents and adequacy of evidence have to be considered.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 14:23
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (ohnoes @ Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 10:26) *
Being summonsed to court is not equivalent to a conviction so lets not pretend it is anything more than a requirement to attend and put your side of the story across.

Yes, of course it is rolleyes.gif

I'm sure everyone prosecuted and acquitted but who may have had their name dragged through the mud in the meantime would agree. Charging someone with an offence is a serious step that shouldn't be taken lightly.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Del76
post Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 22:48
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 26 May 2015
Member No.: 77,427



Yes I had expected to get a letter stating no further action. I was shocked when I got a formal charge and a court attendance request. I instructed a solicitor at this point who knew who to speak to. What is the point of charging if you then fail to progress it to court? Surely a charge means we think we have the evidence and are willing to test it. Not we shall chance our arm and see if you blink. In Scotland I'm lead to believe I can't claim my legal expenses back even after having been found with no case to answer.
Also it seems words that made it to the PF statement from what I stated at the roadside may of been omitted or taken out of context.
For example where I had stated I had moved over to avoid the lorry was interpreted as being nervous and giving it too much room. Not the actual case of moving over to avoid a collision as it was stealing my side of the road.
Also the fact that before any facts had been ascertained or asked for I was informed it would be a fixed penalty this got us all off on the wrong foot and immediately made me not to wish to co-operate.
I think they charged knowing it would cost them nothing but a small amount of time however the worry and stress it placed on me was unfair.
It's a big decision refusing a fixed penalty and risking 6 points or worse if found guilty. An abandoned charge should carry some risk for the PF

I also think the police were annoyed that I had refused to accept their fixed penalty and may have written their account to the PF in an unflattering way (I'm not saying dishonest) the same thing can be said many ways although the way it's interpreted can be more or less severe.

This post has been edited by Del76: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 22:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Del76
post Tue, 13 Jun 2017 - 23:09
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 26 May 2015
Member No.: 77,427



I think you're being particularly harsh on the police.
Force policy that single vehicle collisions are either FPN'd or reported for court.
Reporting you to court was not an admission of guilt, nor was it proof you'd been careless.
Rightfully so, the PF dismissed the case based on the available evidence when it came to it.
I think it is reasonable to expect someone to go to court and explain why their vehicle has left the road, especially when damage has been caused.
[/quote]


I had explained how I had come to have left the road and cause damage. Knowing I was denying being careless I would have expected them to do a modicum of investigation. Measure skid marks if there were any, look through anpr cameras to see if I was speeding. Inspect the vehicle to see if tyres and brakes were legal. Look in the back of the vehicle was it overloaded? When was the vehicle last serviced? The vehicle has a tachograph fitted although at the time no card was required but this wasn't checked nor were any maintenance records asked for. Surely if you wish to prosecute you have to collect evidence.
We are going down the road that you have to prove your innocence and that should worry even the most law abiding citizen.

Thank you to Fredd for posting the prosecution guidelines. I cannot imagine in my case how they had corroborated evidence which should of led them to take NFA
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 16:36
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here