View Full Version : Are police wrong not to charge?
Are the police wrong not to charge a driver who damaged a car, failed to stop,did not stop and give details, and did not report accident to the police.?
To me this is 3 motoring offences under the Road Traffic act 1988 which could result in a fine up to £5000, disqualification and between 5 and 10 penalty points.
I also feel it could come under the careless driving road traffic act.
The driver scraped along 2 cars and one car owner reported the damage which had happened when the car was parked outside the house. Luckily there were 2 witnesses who gave statements and knew who the driver was
.
Eventually, the police got to interview the driver who did not stop and his car was very damaged. The police decided not to charge the driver because he was old, and they do not charge drivers in minor road accidents as this would fill the courts. this is what the police said to the the owner of the damaged car.
It could have been a child hit by the old man not a car. so the old man gets off and the cost of repairing the damaged new car is £400. The owner of the damaged car has to pay the first £100 and will loose his 30 years no claim bonus.
Where is the justice in this. the owner of the car wsnt even there, the hit and run driver gets let off because he is old, and the damaged car owner has to pay out and has suffered some stress, as though he was the guilty party.
I cant beleive the police have new guidelines where they dont charge anyone in road accidents that are not serious. Does this mean it is ok for us all to drive up a road scraping all cars in the process and we will get off with it?!!
I would be VERY interested to hear what other orgers think about this, and has this happened to you in Caithness?
What I am worried about is that there is a driver on the road that cannot make spacial judgements. He obviously is not fit to drive and should have had his drivers license removed.
The police said the main reason the driver was not charged is because of his age and because he said he would not drive anymore!!
Several people have told me this is not the first time and that he has damaged other cars the same way.
Maybe if he had knocked down a child he MIGHT have been charged or would he get off with that too.
Bobinovich
14-Oct-06, 23:59
I'm incredulous, speechless, dumbfounded and downright annoyed. That is age discrimination - if that had been anyone younger they'd have probably been done to the full extent.
The world has gone mad [evil]
Pardon me for not knowing the full facts as they haven't been given.
How old was the man and is there any possibility that the old man was suffering frm any form of dementia? Could it be at all possible that the old man would not be aware that he has committed any offences in relation to road traffic law as he is getting the onset of dementia. The police have obviously dropped any charges on the understanding that he will not drive again. This can be simply be facilitated by a loved one taking the keys off him and selling his car.
I don't know the full facts but under these circumstances, I doubt whether justice will be served by prosecuting a man who may not understand his predicament. And certainly, it would be most distressing for his family to see their father all feeble in the dock like.:~(
Just be thankful that the ol'mannie is off the road and nothing worse has happened. Even if a child had been killed, I doubt if justice would have been served to prosecute the old man.
just my 2p...
Metalattakk
15-Oct-06, 00:25
Sensible words Rheghead, although the hang 'em and flog 'em crowd won't be happy 'til he's danglin'.
Pardon me for not knowing the full facts as they haven't been given.
How old was the man and is there any possibility that the old man was suffering frm any form of dementia? Could it be at all possible that the old man would not be aware that he has committed any offences in relation to road traffic law as he is getting the onset of dementia. The police have obviously dropped any charges on the understanding that he will not drive again. This can be simply be facilitated by a loved one taking the keys off him and selling his car.
I don't know the full facts but under these circumstances, I doubt whether justice will be served by prosecuting a man who may not understand his predicament. And certainly, it would be most distressing for his family to see their father all feeble in the dock like.:~(
Just be thankful that the ol'mannie is off the road and nothing worse has happened. Even if a child had been killed, I doubt if justice would have been served to prosecute the old man.
just my 2p...Failing to Stop after an accident is a straight offence. The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident has a legal obligation to stop and give his/her name and address to any person so requiring. If that is not possible, eg. you are in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night and there is not a soul anywhere to be seen, then the driver must, at the earliest opportunity, go to the nearest Police Station and report the accident to there.
Ignorance of the law is no defence. If the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident as described and there is a suggestion that, because of the drivers age or mental state that they are unable to understand what they have done then all the more reason to prosecute.
This is not a matter of being vindictive or over bearing and dragging a feeble, sick elderly person before the courts to be hanged drawn and quartered for the enjoyment of the spectacle but for very good and sensible legal reasons.
By placing such a case before the Courts, a plea of mitigation would clarify the situation, the Court is then in a position to Disqualify the driver from Driving either for life or, if they think the driver might recover his faculties, until such times as he passes a Driving Test.
Under the circumstances described there is nothing to stop the driver from getting back in a car and driving, quite legally, again.
Further to that, the Police are not trained and certainly are not qualified to decide a person's mental or physical medical state.
What has been described, if accurate, would appear to be nothing more than yet another "cost cutting" exercise in order to cover up a lack of necessary resources for yet another Public Service to carry out it's responsibilities.
concerned resident
15-Oct-06, 08:44
Other possibilities is that the gentleman concerned was a retired member of the police force, or a person of prominence from the community, a member of the masons. The list goes on, but it is left to the discretion of the police, if to be charged. This is nothing new, it has been taking place for years.
martin macdonald
15-Oct-06, 09:54
i think when u come to 65 years young we should have to have our driving ability looked at yearly by an instructor
i had my drivers door damaged short ago, and reported it to the police i was treated like an offender[never again ]the law is upside down in this department[evil]
Pardon me for not knowing the full facts as they haven't been given.
How old was the man and is there any possibility that the old man was suffering frm any form of dementia? Could it be at all possible that the old man would not be aware that he has committed any offences in relation to road traffic law as he is getting the onset of dementia. The police have obviously dropped any charges on the understanding that he will not drive again. This can be simply be facilitated by a loved one taking the keys off him and selling his car.
I don't know the full facts but under these circumstances, I doubt whether justice will be served by prosecuting a man who may not understand his predicament. And certainly, it would be most distressing for his family to see their father all feeble in the dock like.:~(
Just be thankful that the ol'mannie is off the road and nothing worse has happened. Even if a child had been killed, I doubt if justice would have been served to prosecute the old man.
just my 2p...
I understand what you are explaining, however, if you are suffering from dementia you are not allowed a drivers license nor a car. And you will (or should) have someone responsible for you- to make a comparison, children who cannot be held responsible for actions that cause damage, will have parents or guardians that are held responsible. A person with a demential disease is also not reponsible for their actions and needs someone to be responsible for them. From what was described, it is not fair that a person legaly parked and absent from their vehicle has to absorb the cost of fixing it. The owner of the car was at no fault.
I understand what you are explaining, however, if you are suffering from dementia you are not allowed a drivers license nor a car. And you will (or should) have someone responsible for you- to make a comparison, children who cannot be held responsible for actions that cause damage, will have parents or guardians that are held responsible. A person with a demential disease is also not reponsible for their actions and needs someone to be responsible for them. From what was described, it is not fair that a person legaly parked and absent from their vehicle has to absorb the cost of fixing it. The owner of the car was at no fault.
Life is not so simple. Dementia is a gradual change of one's faculties. And usually, it is only when things have gone too far does a person get referred to a doctor, only then can they be taken off the road forcibly. Up until then, the person invariably is totally unaware of his/her failing faculties and if they are then, they may be in denial. The family will also be at odds because quite often the person can still be totally coherent in everyday life but just may have 'senior moments'. It is often that the moment they are taken off the road then there is a sudden drop in their faculties as they have nothing to exercise their brains.
i think when u come to 65 years young we should have to have our driving ability looked at yearly by an instructor
i had my drivers door damaged short ago, and reported it to the police i was treated like an offender[never again ]the law is upside down in this department[evil]
Yes I agree, also, (bi)annual check ups by a doctor for the purpose of extending a drver's licence would be useful.
im sure if it was with a little smart car with loads of cash spent on it,he would have been charged!! so are they saying because hes old he dosnt know what ehs doing so we will let him off?thats worse people like that should not have there license removed and burnt!
changilass
15-Oct-06, 11:36
I don't think him saying he won't drive again is enough. If it was a member of my family I would want the licence legally remove - for thier own safety as well others
connieb19
15-Oct-06, 11:47
Surely even if he's not going to be charged, the cost of the repairs should be covered by his insurance? Why is the other insurance companies not fighting it?
pultneytooner
15-Oct-06, 12:20
Right, get the torches and the pitchforks out.[lol]
Right, get the torches and the pitchforks out.[lol]
gona lend me a pitchfork?got me torch on standby lol
pultneytooner
15-Oct-06, 12:28
gona lend me a pitchfork?got me torch on standby lol
I only have the one but I can let you have a nice wee hoe.
connieb19
15-Oct-06, 12:30
I only have the one but I can let you have a nice wee hoe.
I can just picture the excitement on Saxovtr's face. :eek:
I know of a more serious case that happened a few nights ago nothing is being done about it as there is no evidence. one word against another and the culprit gets away with it again for the 2nd time.:roll:
The old man who scraped along the cars does not have dementia, so i do not know where that comes from. In fact, he must be quite fit as he walks a long distance to play bingo a few nights a week, and is lucky at it too.He is not that old, probably 72.
The owners of the damaged cars could, I believe, ask their insurance companies to try and recover the costs from the other driver's insurers.
They have the guilty person, the police will have his insurance company details (or they can find them out) so the 'victims' may need to pursue compensation themselves. Not fair IMO, and the old guy should have been charged. End of....
The victim should never need to pursue the other driver for damages. This should be done by the insurance company, who are entitled to the information the police hold to help them come to their final decision.
highlander2222
15-Oct-06, 16:51
Failing to Stop after an accident is a straight offence. The driver of a vehicle involved in an accident has a legal obligation to stop and give his/her name and address to any person so requiring. If that is not possible, eg. you are in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night and there is not a soul anywhere to be seen, then the driver must, at the earliest opportunity, go to the nearest Police Station and report the accident to there.
Ignorance of the law is no defence. If the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident as described and there is a suggestion that, because of the drivers age or mental state that they are unable to understand what they have done then all the more reason to prosecute.
This is not a matter of being vindictive or over bearing and dragging a feeble, sick elderly person before the courts to be hanged drawn and quartered for the enjoyment of the spectacle but for very good and sensible legal reasons.
By placing such a case before the Courts, a plea of mitigation would clarify the situation, the Court is then in a position to Disqualify the driver from Driving either for life or, if they think the driver might recover his faculties, until such times as he passes a Driving Test.
Under the circumstances described there is nothing to stop the driver from getting back in a car and driving, quite legally, again.
Further to that, the Police are not trained and certainly are not qualified to decide a person's mental or physical medical state.
What has been described, if accurate, would appear to be nothing more than yet another "cost cutting" exercise in order to cover up a lack of necessary resources for yet another Public Service to carry out it's responsibilities.
100% agree
I can just picture the excitement on Saxovtr's face. :eek:
[lol]hmmm not so sure
danc1ngwitch
15-Oct-06, 19:26
My son was on his way home while out playing and a car peeped the horn, keeping his/her hand on the horn for a long period. My son became afraid he was doing something wrong and tryed to mount the high Kerb, he fell the car saw him fall but kept on going. My son got help home that night and his arm was indeed broken. Nuttin we could do as he could not tell the make of car etc... I was going to put a bit in da local paper but decided against as possibly it could have been an elderly person who could have been really distressed. But at the same time my child could have hurt his head.. What is right and what is wrong.. PPL get it put into their heads not to approach other folks kids, but surely in this case the driver should have checked. I would not have pressed charges any way as i am sure they would have learned their lesson. ( or would they )..
The Big Fish
15-Oct-06, 21:19
I like probably everyone here do not have the full facts of this situation. Any driver who is victim to another drivers poor standard of driving can pursue a claim through their insurers (the insurance company do all the work), a guilty driver need not be prosecutedfor an insurance company to successfully claim. For all we know the issue here may be strictly medical, perhaps the old man suffered a medical episode that we are not aware of. In this instance the police or indeed anyone who has concerns regarding someones fitness to drive can report them to the chief medical examiner at dvla who is duty bound to carryout a medical examination which can result in the removal of a drivers licence.
The British judicial system is clogged up by cases involving serious neds do we clogg up the so called wheels of justice with old men who are better suited to licence removal through medical grounds. Dead easy to blame the police who have to justify every decision which is subjected to the most thorough of scrutiny. for me the issue is that none of us are in possession of the full facts[disgust]
The instances and problems of older drivers and the issue of whether they should have their licences renewed is only set to increase because of the boon of car owners in the 1950s are coming to a certain age. Lets hope that common sense and understanding will ensure that we have safe roads without the need for a which hunt or a good old tomato chucking at the occupant of the stocks.:roll:
George Brims
15-Oct-06, 21:44
Surely even if he's not going to be charged, the cost of the repairs should be covered by his insurance? Why is the other insurance companies not fighting it?
By rights the other car owners' insurance companies should claim all this damage from the old mannie's insurance company. However in my experience insurance companies are bone idle and venal, and will simply take the money from their own customers, instead of going to the trouble.
The old man who scraped along the cars does not have dementia, so i do not know where that comes from. In fact, he must be quite fit as he walks a long distance to play bingo a few nights a week, and is lucky at it too.He is not that old, probably 72.
Dementia was suggested as a reason that the Police neglected to prosecute the person concerned. "We felt sorry for him and his relatives so we did nothing."
Had the reason for not prosecuting the driver been as suggested I very much doubt that any Insurance Company would be happy to honour any policy.
I have little doubt that they would assert that they had not been made aware of the correct information at the time the policy was issued The policy holder is also under an obligation to inform them of any material change in circumstances. If a driver were to be found to be medically unfit to drive then I have little doubt they would cancel any policy immediately.
There is no reasonable excuse at all for the Police not prosecuting a driver who fails to comply with the requirements in respect to the actions required after an accident.
Of course, I'm sure that no driver caught smiling at the Camera gets treated so leniently.
That, however, is money for old rope and does not involve work, expense and Court Time.
Quite bluntly this would appear to be nothing more than a Public Service neglecting to carry out it's responsibilities as part of a cost saving exercise.
A driver's responsibilities after having been involved in a Road Traffic Accident are layed out simply and clearly. The driver MUST STOP and give his/her name and address to any person so requiring. Failure to do so is an offence. Should this, for whatever reason (nobody there to give details to) the driver must report the accident at the EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY at the NEAREST Police Station. Failure to do so is an offence.
The onus is on the driver involved to comply with the above and there is no "Get out of Jail" card written into the law.
Pardon me for not knowing the full facts as they haven't been given.
How old was the man and is there any possibility that the old man was suffering frm any form of dementia? Could it be at all possible that the old man would not be aware that he has committed any offences in relation to road traffic law as he is getting the onset of dementia. The police have obviously dropped any charges on the understanding that he will not drive again. This can be simply be facilitated by a loved one taking the keys off him and selling his car.
I don't know the full facts but under these circumstances, I doubt whether justice will be served by prosecuting a man who may not understand his predicament. And certainly, it would be most distressing for his family to see their father all feeble in the dock like.:~(
Just be thankful that the ol'mannie is off the road and nothing worse has happened. Even if a child had been killed, I doubt if justice would have been served to prosecute the old man.
just my 2p...
You have a valid point but that would not be for the police to judge. He should have been charged and a JUDGE / SHERRIF can determine if there are extenuating circumstances such, as dementia, and adjust the penalty accordingly.
concerned resident
16-Oct-06, 10:00
Sorry for being so blunt, but the law does not cover all the people, certain people, i will say (appear to be able to walk on water) for various reasons, example two people in the sheriff court both exact motoring offences, one will get fine and penalty points, and the other just a fine, but in most instances this person would not have been charged. Just wondering if you live on the same planet as i do, as this is nothing new.
Sorry for being so blunt, but the law does not cover all the people, certain people, i will say (appear to be able to walk on water) for various reasons, example two people in the sheriff court both exact motoring offences, one will get fine and penalty points, and the other just a fine, but in most instances this person would not have been charged. Just wondering if you live on the same planet as i do, as this is nothing new.
Depends on how good a lawyer they get?.........
Sorry for being so blunt, but the law does not cover all the people, certain people, i will say (appear to be able to walk on water) for various reasons, example two people in the sheriff court both exact motoring offences, one will get fine and penalty points, and the other just a fine, but in most instances this person would not have been charged. Just wondering if you live on the same planet as i do, as this is nothing new.
This is certainly nothing new and has been happening for as long as I can remember.
Sometimes the difference in punishment for identical offences defies logic and, more often than not, has little to do with either position or social standing.
You have a valid point but that would not be for the police to judge. He should have been charged and a JUDGE / SHERRIF can determine if there are extenuating circumstances such, as dementia, and adjust the penalty accordingly.
Not true, as the police are trained to use the discretion if and when compassionate circumstances arise. (ooh, I can see a lot of fowk seeing things differently...:))
Thankyou all for your replies which have been most informative and helpful.
Apparently the damged car owners insurance company are having a problem with the insurers of the old man who damaged the car. However, they say the car owner should get back the £100 they have to pay towards the damage repairs.The witnesses have been very helpful.
Nevertheless, the car owner should not have to pay anything in my view, and I can see this insurance problem going on and on. The old man, who apparently is quite well off should pay up, as in my view, he committed a crime and got off with it.
Not true, as the police are trained to use the discretion if and when compassionate circumstances arise. (ooh, I can see a lot of fowk seeing things differently...:))The Police are not trained, nor are they qualified, to assess a person's medical or mental condition.
Add to that, should a person be suffering from the condition you suggest as an example and I have seen nothing to suggest that this is in fact the case, I would suggest that, should such a person drive again, then the Police could well be open to the criticism that they had condoned the drivers action by not having ensured that he had had his driving licence revoked.
Should a driver become medically unfit to drive then that person is obliged to inform the DVLC of that fact. Failure to do so is an offence in itself.
The medical condition you suggest would indicate to me that there would be even more reason to ensure that the driver was not legally entitled to drive again whilst such a medical condition persists.
Under such circumstances the safety of the public should be paramount and doing nothing about ensuring that such a person's Driving Licence was revoked is, in effect, condoning his actions.
As far as I can see the suggestion of dementia is purely hypothetical unless there is information to the contrary.
In view of the fact that the full details are not known I hope people will accept that my comments too are of a hypothetical nature.
The only definite observation I would make is that, whatever the reasons for the police not having taken action, the other parties involved should receive some sort of satisfactory explanation as they are very much involved and could well be adversly affected by that decision.
Metalattakk
17-Oct-06, 03:25
Right, let's review the facts as they stand so far.
Oh wait, we have no real facts at all, just (most likely) some gossip that Fran has heard (and later been updated on) at the bingo hall....
So, let's all make a big thing of (again, most likely) very, very little at all.
For a change. :roll:
I apologise sincerely if my post upsets you Fran, but surely without definitive evidence and proof, there's not really much to talk about here?
The Police are not trained, nor are they qualified, to assess a person's medical or mental condition.
Incorrect, they have expertise that is recognised in law to enable them to decide whether a person if fit to drive and that means they can lawful judgements on a person's mental and physical fitness in the absence of a doctor AND they are entitled (without explanation) to use their discretion when they see fit.
Add to that, should a person be suffering from the condition you suggest as an example and I have seen nothing to suggest that this is in fact the case, I would suggest that, should such a person drive again, then the Police could well be open to the criticism that they had condoned the drivers action by not having ensured that he had had his driving licence revoked.
We haven't had any reason to believe he wasn't suffering from a mild form of dementia. I don't believe we've had the ol'mannies doctor on here. And I don't believe that the police would be openly criticised for the actions that they have took. Even if the said man got his licence rvoked, whatis to stop him from getting in his car again?
Should a driver become medically unfit to drive then that person is obliged to inform the DVLC of that fact. Failure to do so is an offence in itself.
True, there isn't any suggestion that the ol'mannie hasn't.
The medical condition you suggest would indicate to me that there would be even more reason to ensure that the driver was not legally entitled to drive again whilst such a medical condition persists.
again, very true. If the police have not done anything then it is up to the man and his doctor to sort it out.
Under such circumstances the safety of the public should be paramount and doing nothing about ensuring that such a person's Driving Licence was revoked is, in effect, condoning his actions.
If the safety of the public is paramount then only the safest drivers should be on the road, so there should be a lot of drivers that should be banned until they are deemed fit eg, teenagers, fat people, people on medication, people with attention deficit syndrome, the physical disabled etc etc.
As far as I can see the suggestion of dementia is purely hypothetical unless there is information to the contrary.
Since we seem to be trying the police by messageboard then I only have to sow the seeds of reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. It is not unreasonable that the police did not press charges because of the man's mental frailty.:D
In view of the fact that the full details are not known I hope people will accept that my comments too are of a hypothetical nature.
The only definite observation I would make is that, whatever the reasons for the police not having taken action, the other parties involved should receive some sort of satisfactory explanation as they are very much involved and could well be adversly affected by that decision.
I agree, however as stated before, the police need not give an explanation.
I am not trying anybody, I have made clear that my points are in answer to a purely hypothetical situation.
You make the point that there is nothing to suggest that he is not suffering from any form of dementia. That is correct, but there is nothing to suggest he is not suffering from defective eyesight, the after effects of a stroke, epilepsy or from any of the many medical conditions which would preclude him from holding a Driving Licence.
There has been absolutely no evidence that the driver in question is suffering from any medical condition which would affect his driving.
I am not sure of the person's age but a Driving Licence becomes renewable after a driver reaches the age of 70. After that age, should a Driver renew thier Driving Licence whilst suffering from a known Medical Condition they would commit a further offence by making a declaration that they were not suffering from such a condition.
With respect to the Police having the authority to judge a person's fitness to drive, what you suggest is that a Police Officer has the authority and judgement to declare a person is henceforth Disqualified from Driving.
I would suggest that it would only be that the Police can prevent a driver from driving at a perticular time and under a specific set of circumstances.
If the police had the authority to declare a person was unfit to drive on future occassions why is it that it is necessary to take any driver to court in order to have them disqualified? Why is it necessary for a Court to Disqualify a Driver under the "Totting-up" proceedure? Surely all the police would need to do is to say that a person has exceeded 12 points so they are Disqualified.
The Medical Condition which has been suggested is certainly a matter for the person and their Doctor with respect to treatment of the medical side of their condition but it is still the responsibility of the person suffering the condition to inform the DVLC who will then take steps to have the persons ability to retain a Driving Licence assessed. This can be done either by them contacting the persons own Doctor or Specialist or by the DVLC having them assessed by a Doctor appointed by them. Should they be of the opinion that the persons condition may deteriorate then they can insist a driver is assessed at a period of their choosing.
With regard to the safety aspect, the suggestion has been made that the driver is suffering from a specific and existing and known medical condition which makes him unfit to drive, ie. dementia and not a condition which might possibly make him unfit to drive.
With respect to the possibility that the person could drive even if his Driving licence were revoked then I would suggest that in that case why bother having Driving Licences at all? Why bother Disqualifying driver who commit serious traffic offences, why bother, after all, they might just ignore the fact and continue driving so what's the point?
With respect to sowing a reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury I would suggest that there is nothing whatsoever that has been given to show that the person is anything other that in full control of his mental and physical abilities. There is much to show that he is not, however, in full control of his vehicle.
I am well aware that the Police do not "have" to give a reason to the other parties involved but all that their failure to give some sort of explanation to the other parties involved would indicate a certain lack of common courtesy and definitely a total lack of good Public Relations. I'm sure that had the Police bothered to provide the other persons involve with some sort of satisfactory explanation for their inaction then the matter would have caused no concern. It is the fact that they have neglected so to do which has been the cause of this thread and it is the fact that they acted in the manner they did that has led to this thread.
So far I have seen no evidence whatsoever that there is any specific reason why the Police should not have proceeded with a prosecution as they would have done were the driver young and very inexperienced.
What I have suggested, if the driver were indeed suffering from dementia, is not as a method of "punishment" but that there is every reason to have put the whole matter on a sound legal footing.
The suggestion that somebody saying, "We'll make sure he doesn't drive again" I would hardly consider to be in any way legally binding on anybody.
In effect, what is being suggested is that should a drunk driver make it safely home then provided somebody says, "It's alright, we will make sure he doesn't drive unless he's sober" then that is quite acceptable. There is no point in taking the driver to court and getting him disqualified because he might just drive again anyway so why bother.
As far as I am aware the current official policy is to ignore minor, non-injury Road Traffic Accidents as a matter of policy and leaving the matter to the Insurance Companies. This is fine where there are no distinct offences committed and the drivers have stopped and exchanged details.
In the matter under discussion it would appear that there are distinct offences which have been committed, namely, failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident.
The reason for the Official Policy is for purely economic reasons and for no other. To put it bluntly, the Official Policy is, "turn a blind eye, it saves money!"
The problem lies not with the actions of individuals but with a policy lay down from on high by people who's only concern covering up the fact that they are failing to supply sufficient resources for effective policing.
David from Stockport
17-Oct-06, 16:37
A couple of years ago I was driving in the early evening when it was dark and i saw a car coming towards me on my side of the road luckily only at about 20 miles an hour , the only options were to drive onto the pavement or let the car hit me, as there were people on the pavement i had to let the car hit me.Lucky for me there was a police car a couple of cars away and the officers stopped the car concerned. The police gave me the drivers insurance details and assured me that the elderly lady driver who was in her 80 s would get a visit from them to give an eyesight test which she would fail as her excuse was - oh sorry love i cant see in the dark!!!- although i do belong to the hang them and flog em brigade im have to let officers make sensible judgements as all cases are different and down here in England police are fighting a losing battle with more serious crimes.
METALATTAKK.........I am quite surprised at your comments.
No this is not gossip by me from a bingo hall. i am not one to gossip, and the gossip I do hear is usually untrue anyway.
Nor are the facts not reaL. tHE FACTS are VERY real. tHIS HAPPENED TO A FAMILY MEMBER AND i WAS THERE. I came on here for advice to see if this has happened to anyone else. I do know quite a lot about the law and was surprised by the police action. I myself have spoken to the police sergeant involved.
I certainly would not come on here with gossip. the facts are all true and my family member would like to know what to do next.
All the other posts on here have been very helpful and i am grateful for most of the replies.
Metalattakk
17-Oct-06, 17:21
As I said already, I apologise if what I suggested is not the case.
Again though, you have not furnished us with anything which you can verify as 'fact', nor any information which could be construed as anything other than gossip.
If statements were taken at the time, and you spoke to the Police Sergeant himself, then surely you should be asking him (he has a duty to deal with this, do you not think?) what to do, rather than asking all and sundry on an internet messageboard?
For what its worth, I personally think that this is a completely fictional story.
I certainly would not come on here with gossip.
Of course you wouldn't, Fran.
:lol:
Magic, pure magic. Somewhere along the line I seemed to have either missed something or a huge chunk of posts have gone missing.
Where is there anything in this thread to support what has come to be treated as a fact that anybody involved in the alleged incident is suffering from any form of medical condition?
Where is there any mention of statements having been taken from anybody?
Has there been any mention of anybody having had any contact whatsoever with a Police Sergeant?
At what point was there any mention of Fran going to Bingo?
All I have seen so far is that there have been a number of vague, totally unsupported excuses founded on pure supposition as to why no action was taken by the Police.
I am aware that Road Traffic Accidents which only involve minor damage and no injuries and where there is no obvious offence committed by the parties involved are no longer the subject of a full Road Traffic Accident Report. Indeed, in most cases this has been so for many decades.
However, under the circumstances described, and I am well aware that we only have one version of the incident, it would appear that there are distinct and obvious offences committed.
All that the suggested reasons for there being no action taken for failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident have done nothing other than suggest that there are even more offences to be considered.
I have no interest in pillorying anybody neither am I concerned, unless the individuals concerned become identifiable, whether the incident described is fact or fiction.
The question, as far as I am concerned, is what, if any, action should or should not be taken by the Police under a particular set of circumstances as described.
Metalattakk
17-Oct-06, 21:47
All I have seen so far is that there have been a number of vague, totally unsupported excuses founded on pure supposition as to why no action was taken by the Police.
Well, the whole scenario is based on supposition. If Fran wants to present a hypothetical conundrum for us all to solve, we shoud be able to come up with some viable explanations or solutions.
The question, as far as I am concerned, is what, if any, action should or should not be taken by the Police under a particular set of circumstances as described.
The (albeit paraphrased) question actually was 'What should I do about this situation?', posed in post number one, by Fran. The answer to which is obviously 'Go and ask the police.'
Well, the whole scenario is based on supposition. If Fran wants to present a hypothetical conundrum for us all to solve, we shoud be able to come up with some viable explanations or solutions.
The (albeit paraphrased) question actually was 'What should I do about this situation?', posed in post number one, by Fran. The answer to which is obviously 'Go and ask the police.'It was apparently the Police who said they were going to sit on their hands and do nothing.
I would agree that viable explanations would be a very good solution indeed but so far I have seen none. Just to assume that because a person is old then they probably or even possibly suffer from dementia is no different to branding all young drivers as being totally irresponsible speed freaks.
If the question is what action can be taken by the person who's vehicle has suffered damage and they believe the Police have neglected to take the necessary action then I would advise a check of the following site:-
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/Police/19354/18482
This site gives details of how to make an official complaint against the Police including how to take the complaint, if the complaint is not adequately dealt with, as far as Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabularies.
If I felt sufficiently aggrieved about the action or lack of it by the Police then, personally, I would start by writing to the Home Office and let the complaint find it's own level from there.
As I have said previously, I accept that we have only heard one side of the incident and that is the situation I have commented on. Were a different set of circumstances described then I would attempt to consider them in a dispassionate manner as well.
One thing that people should bear in mind is the possibility that the police took no action was that the driver involved was actually under the mind control of Little Green Men and the inaction is part of a cover-up so as not to cause any distress or worries the public in general.
Well, it's as good a suggestion as any other I have heard so far, most of which have made the alleged lack of action by the Police of even greater concern and most of which I would not have thought the Police would entertain as a reason for taking no further action.
Metalattakk
17-Oct-06, 23:55
It was apparently the Police who said they were going to sit on their hands and do nothing.
Nope, it was Fran who said that the Police said that. Glad you added that 'apparently' though. ;)
In fact there is a great deal of ambiguity about what she actually said -
Eventually, the police got to interview the driver who did not stop and his car was very damaged. The police decided not to charge the driver because he was old, and they do not charge drivers in minor road accidents as this would fill the courts. this is what the police said to the the owner of the damaged car.
- and a great deal of grey areas in which suppositions and hypothetical theories could be added.
[quote=Metalattakk;147573]Nope, it was Fran who said that the Police said that. Glad you added that 'apparently' though. ;)
In fact there is a great deal of ambiguity about what she actually said -
- and a great deal of grey areas in which suppositions and hypothetical theories could be added.[/uote]
.................................................. ...............................................
I did not say "the police said they were going to sit on their hands and do nothing". The police sergeant iinterviewed the driver and took statements from witnesses and the car owner and a report was made.
My only query in all this, is, as I said at the beginning, I do not understand why the driver was not charged with damaging a car, careless driving, failing to stop and failing to report the accident. As I stated before I spoke to the police sergeant involved a few days ago and asked questions and have said previously what he said.
Metalattakk
18-Oct-06, 01:07
You've been told why there was no further action taken already - by a police sergeant, no less. What on earth is there to misunderstand about what he said to you?
Surely even if he's not going to be charged, the cost of the repairs should be covered by his insurance? Why is the other insurance companies not fighting it?
The car owners insurance are having difficulty with the other insurance apparently
The Big Fish
18-Oct-06, 01:15
Jaws you are clearly getting into a series of maybees aye maybees no scenarios all of which end in you for some unexplained reason blaming the police. The simple answer to this scenario is that the police in Scotland are simply a reporting agency for the Procurator Fiscal. Guidelines as to the criteria for reporting a road traffic accident to the court system is decided by the Lord advocate and on a localised level the Fiscal service.In respect of the Police decision not to prosecute which again may be hearsay and in fact the police may have submitted a report and the Fiscal service who did not see it in the public interest to prosecute, I make the submission that 100 pounds worth of damage to a car would amount to a very light scratch and has it occurred to you that the person responsible may not have been aware he caused any damage. You go on about hypothetical circumstances and then talk of the onus being upon the licence holder to inform DVLA of any medical situations. Do you not think that a dementia sufferer may not realise they are suffering from such a disease, as is the nature of it....... come on spit it out you have been caught speeding numerous times and really you blame the polis for it!!! I'm no lawyer but if I were defending the old guy I'd say he swerved to miss an animal that ran onto the road causing the minor damage which would have been much worse had it not been for the skillful driving of my client......Now prove the manner of driving was criminal in a system that requires beyond all reasonable doubt?........lets get real here!:confused
The Big Fish
18-Oct-06, 01:19
I forgot to say that if you want an explanation you should use the freedom of information act as a tool and the police will give you their reasons based upon facts........dont rely on hearsay they weren't a particularly good band anyway!
Right, let's review the facts as they stand so far.
Oh wait, we have no real facts at all, just (most likely) some gossip that Fran has heard (and later been updated on) at the bingo hall....
So, let's all make a big thing of (again, most likely) very, very little at all.
For a change. :roll:
I apologise sincerely if my post upsets you Fran, but surely without definitive evidence and proof, there's not really much to talk about here?
What has bingo got to do with this??????There IS evidence and proof.You have the facts and all are real, why would I lie.
I forgot to say that if you want an explanation you should use the freedom of information act as a tool and the police will give you their reasons based upon facts........dont rely on hearsay they weren't a particularly good band anyway!
.....................................
I am not going by hearsay, I am going by what I was told by the police which left me puzzled. I would like to add that the police sergeant involved was most helpful. .................................................
Metalattakk
18-Oct-06, 01:26
Facts don't become true just because you type them into your computer.
You say that those are facts. I say that you heard it at the bingo.
Now, saying that doesn't make it true either.
Understand?
Jaws you are clearly getting into a series of maybees aye maybees no scenarios all of which end in you for some unexplained reason blaming the police. The simple answer to this scenario is that the police in Scotland are simply a reporting agency for the Procurator Fiscal. Guidelines as to the criteria for reporting a road traffic accident to the court system is decided by the Lord advocate and on a localised level the Fiscal service.In respect of the Police decision not to prosecute which again may be hearsay and in fact the police may have submitted a report and the Fiscal service who did not see it in the public interest to prosecute, I make the submission that 100 pounds worth of damage to a car would amount to a very light scratch and has it occurred to you that the person responsible may not have been aware he caused any damage. You go on about hypothetical circumstances and then talk of the onus being upon the licence holder to inform DVLA of any medical situations. Do you not think that a dementia sufferer may not realise they are suffering from such a disease, as is the nature of it....... come on spit it out you have been caught speeding numerous times and really you blame the polis for it!!! I'm no lawyer but if I were defending the old guy I'd say he swerved to miss an animal that ran onto the road causing the minor damage which would have been much worse had it not been for the skillful driving of my client......Now prove the manner of driving was criminal in a system that requires beyond all reasonable doubt?........lets get real here!:confused.................................... ..............
In reply...the damage will cost £400 to repair, the £100 is what the car owner has to pay now towards repair, the driver does not have dementia, the police have not submitted a report to the fiscal, as I have previously stated.The car is a new car, there were witnesses so a lawyer would not be able to "make up" a story.It has been proved beyond reaonable doubt and the police agree on this.
Jaws you are clearly getting into a series of maybees aye maybees no scenarios all of which end in you for some unexplained reason blaming the police. The simple answer to this scenario is that the police in Scotland are simply a reporting agency for the Procurator Fiscal. Guidelines as to the criteria for reporting a road traffic accident to the court system is decided by the Lord advocate and on a localised level the Fiscal service.In respect of the Police decision not to prosecute which again may be hearsay and in fact the police may have submitted a report and the Fiscal service who did not see it in the public interest to prosecute, I make the submission that 100 pounds worth of damage to a car would amount to a very light scratch and has it occurred to you that the person responsible may not have been aware he caused any damage. You go on about hypothetical circumstances and then talk of the onus being upon the licence holder to inform DVLA of any medical situations. Do you not think that a dementia sufferer may not realise they are suffering from such a disease, as is the nature of it....... come on spit it out you have been caught speeding numerous times and really you blame the polis for it!!! I'm no lawyer but if I were defending the old guy I'd say he swerved to miss an animal that ran onto the road causing the minor damage which would have been much worse had it not been for the skillful driving of my client......Now prove the manner of driving was criminal in a system that requires beyond all reasonable doubt?........lets get real here!:confused
Magic, pure magic. Somewhere along the line I seemed to have either missed something or a huge chunk of posts have gone missing.
Where is there anything in this thread to support what has come to be treated as a fact that anybody involved in the alleged incident is suffering from any form of medical condition None
Where is there any mention of statements having been taken from anybody?
iI did say that statements were taken from witnesses
Has there been any mention of anybody having had any contact whatsoever with a Police Sergeant? II did say that i have spoken to the police at the time and then a few days ago
I
At what point was there any mention of Fran going to Bingo? iI said the driver goes to bingo so is fit and metalattak stated that I had picked all this up as gossip from bingo
All I have seen so far is that there have been a number of vague, totally unsupported excuses founded on pure supposition as to why no action was taken by the Police. mMy whole thread is about the police not taking aCTION AND wondering why not
__________________________________________________ ___________-
I am aware that Road Traffic Accidents which only involve minor damage and no injuries and where there is no obvious offence committed by the parties involved are no longer the subject of a full Road Traffic Accident Report. Indeed, in most cases this has been so for many decades.
However, under the circumstances described, and I am well aware that we only have one version of the incident, it would appear that there are distinct and obvious offences committed.
All that the suggested reasons for there being no action taken for failing to stop after an accident and failing to report an accident have done nothing other than suggest that there are even more offences to be considered.
I have no interest in pillorying anybody neither am I concerned, unless the individuals concerned become identifiable, whether the incident described is fact or fiction. TThis is not fiction it is a fact. I was hoping to hear from someone who had the same happen to them.
The question, as far as I am concerned, is what, if any, action should or should not be taken by the Police under a particular set of circumstances as described. IThankyou, i agree with this. whats to stop the driver getting in his car and doing it again, or knocking down a child, after all he is not banned.
Metalattakk
18-Oct-06, 01:47
What is to stop a banned driver from getting in a car and knocking down a child?
:rolleyes:
What is to stop a banned driver from getting in a car and knocking down a child?
:rolleyes:Using that argument you might as well say that there is no point in disqualifying any driver no matter what the offence.
In fact, why bother prosecuting anybody because they might commit the same offence again.
I think I'll have half a bottle of whiskey and go for a drive round the County because there is no point in anybody stopping me because there is nothing to stop me doing it again and again and again. And don't bother saying I could be sent to prison because there would be nothing to stop me doing it again immediately I get out.
What a wonderful reason for ignoring any traffic offence, after all what's to stop the driver doing it again?
Throwing the red herring of an injured child into the discussion changes absolutely nothing any more than the suggestion that a banned driver might drive again and do the world a favour by running over the head of a mass murderer and preventing him from killing again.
Any other suggestions to play on people's emotions because the injured child isn't working for me as an excuse?
Metalattakk
18-Oct-06, 10:45
Of course that's no argument.
Notice the addition of a smiley (:rolleyes:) at the end if my post. You do understand what they represent, don't you?
Now where's the :d'oh: smiley when you want it?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.