Dave Henshall

my initial pulling over was for speeding, 2 weekd later 2 summons, one for speeding and ofe for dangerous (AFTER i had lodged a complaint against the copper )

cant beat the system

tonyk

I am finishing my degree in law and often read posts on here, what most of you miss and dont understand is the law does not deal with maybes, it looks at the evidence in black and white, right or wrong. Using the topic starters information, the reason he got done is he undertook a car, it doesnt matter if the other driver was going slower in the outside lane.

Now the cops will not care if miss daisy was doing 60mph and the speed limit is 70mph, cause she is legally entitled to do so and is not breaking the set speed limit, however a car comes up behind her, undertakes no matter how calm. This is an offence under the road traffic act, where doing 60mph in a 70mph is not.

Your details will go to the station for consideration on what to charge you with. The fact that there was two cars involved looks worse for you, but again this depends on what sections of the road traffic act you have both broken.

Ginge !

isnt not sticking to the left a offence too

as in you broke the law because the other person wasnt follwing the law

dont think they will go too far tbh but as ya got a producer and the cautioned a dont make it sound good though

tonyk

Your first 2 lines of text are what I mean by the law not dealing with maybes. The fact the car was in the outside lane is not the offence in question here, its the fact the other car undertook it. It is not an offence to be in the outside lane of a road. Undertaking is an offence unless in congested roads.

An example is you leave the pub following a car, you have not had a drink but the guy infront is blocked, he slams the brakes on for no reason, you go into the back of his motor. Who is at fault here?

Its not the drunk guy, its you. The reason, you where not a safe distance behind the car in front and failed to stop in time. You are at fault for the accident, the driver in front will be prosecuted for drink driving. Can you see where i am going with this?

Ginge !

i canm but thats where i dint agree with the law

personally if i was to make a law if a guys drunk ( over the legal limit btw) and a poerson drives into the back of him its the dunk mans fault as if he got a cab home the driver would not be behind him to crash into him, same as the old woman on the outside lane, if she followed the RULES OF THE ROAD then other drivers would not have to break the law to go to get to there destination legally, if then undertake at speed then i belive that they should be delt with based on the offence with no mitigating circumstances and there missus should be given the point and not allowed to argue

The Rapid 1

tonyk
Know what you are saying is correct (not necessarily right )

But in the case of undertaking WHO says it is dangerous

As I think most will probs agree (here not the law) more dangerous NOT to undertake.

If before making your manuvoure you make sure it is safe to do so, who can prove that it wasnt and was in fact dangerous.

With undertaking the biggest consideration should be do you have an "OUT" if the car you are undertaking decides to move over to the left, if you have that out and enough room to safely make the manuvoure again I say just who says its dangerous.

Always believed it was reasonably hard for prosecution to get conviction for dangerous if not more or less caused accident

And if you was to plead not guilty and go to court and explain to the magistrates that in no way was the manuvoure you made was "dangerous" then the cops have used the wrong report so should be thrown out of court

Sideways_Sierra

Ah balls, it prob wont help that I said i was guilty on the road side then

Ok, here's what went on with the copper...

Pulls up, cautions me

I look at the other car and say "I thought it was a cossie"

copper says "so by that comment your not denying the offence?"

me "no, I did undertake, things we do eh"



So you could look at that a few ways. one way, I admit to undertaking and racing (which I think he was geting at) but all he said was, the offence was for undertaking.

so yes, I admitted to undertaking, but just stating that I thought the other car was a cossie. The court could say "oh you thought it was a cossie so raced it" - but then my respsonse would be that "I pulled off the A127, waiting at the traffic lights and a sierra pulled up in my mirror - which is true - and I thought it was a cossie"


A couple of ways that could be taken, kinda kicking myself a bit now for saying the word GUILTY on the roadside

Renton

Not read any of the other replies, but in answer to your question, dangerous is worse that reckless. And believe it or not, dangerous is WORSE than DRINK DRIVING!!!

A guy in my office (Dan White) rolled his car on a back lane, no one else involved. Cut a long story short, he got a one year ban for dangerous driving.

A few weeks later a different guy rolled his car WHILE PISSED on a back lane, again, no one involved. He got a one year ban for drink driving.

Now get this. The drink driver can go on a rehabilitation course and get his ban reduced to 9 months. He then gets his licence back, no questions asked.

HOWEVER. There is no 'ban reduction course' for a dangerous driving charge. After the year is up you have to pass an extended retest to get your license back.

And just to rub salt in, insurance costs MORE if you've got a dangerous driving charge than a drink driving.

The moral of the story: Dan would have been better off if he was pissed... That's fucked up.

Porkie

iTrader: (1)

I can kinda understand that though in a weird way. The guy who rolled his car when pissed had an excuse for driving like a cnut... he was twated and the brave juice made him think he had more talent than he had or impaired his judgement! So take the booze out of the situation and it hopefully won't happen again.

The guy who rolled whilst sober had no excuse for driving like a cnut! and is clearly a crap or lairy driver who made the wrong decision without the 'help' of Alcohol and is more likely to be a knob again

I am joking of course and don't condone either drink driving OR dangerous driving in any way at all.

Morning by the way mate. Back at work and trying to smile...

Ratty

iTrader: (1)

So the moral of the story is......

If you want to drive like a **** drive pissed