Justice was done - done for using a mobile while driving

[James]

And in the last 6 weeks I have recommended that three be prosecuted for it in my current role - two fatals and a serious life altering RTC.

Now that's a different subject...

Following a RTC there is good likelihood of a conviction...

but were talking about witnessing a single act..that hasn't led to a collision...ie: the mobile phone abuser..

Did you read my post?

I did, was very impressed.

[7db]

I think on due care cases (which are not borderline dangerous) then there's a big role for Education rather than Enforcement.

A stop and chat is one way. "Watch this video of yourself being a prat". Another is being brought in for interview some time later. A letter warning about their driving perhaps a lesser effect.

If people won't learn then punish them.

[James]

If you see an offence of driving without due care an attention or careless driving, fulfilling the definition of the offence, what do you do? Do you ignore it, because you believe CPS won’t run it? If this is your chosen action, Where will that get us? We are potentially at risk of sidelining much more serious risk behaviours on the road, simply because they are harder to evidence, and this is a ridiculous situation, especially as we have the facility of unmarked cars and video at our disposal, if our word descriptions are not up to the job.

If you stop and simply warn the driver for something which you feel he should be reported for, then we are not letting the prosecution departments, the CPS and the statisticians know the level of the problem.

If a driver is having difficulty driving a car round a roundabout because they are on a mobile phone, then that is a Sec 3 RTA offence, because their driving has ‘departed from the standard of care and skill that in the particular circumstances of the case would have been expected by a careful and competent driver.’

Where there is evidence of unacceptable driving risk, we should be dealing with the actual offence. Whether CPS decide to run should not be a factor in our original decision making. We should be questioning via our supervision whether their negative decisions are correct. We should be discussing the matter with CPS face to face.

Do you not consider it ludicrous that we have cameras which cause more danger than they prevent, nabbing motorists for a safe 79 on a quiet motorway and obtaining a 90% plus level of prosecution despite the absence of risk. At the same time you have offences for which risk has been identified from a trained traffic officer which passes the ‘careless driving standard’ test, and you have some suit in an office telling you he is not prepared to run it.

Nationally, we bemoan the loss of numbers and loss of skill in Road Policing. But the tendency to capitulate on real risk offences with a shrug and a resignation frustrates the hell out of me, and is partially the cause of the lower tier of priority allocated to road policing over the last few years. Careless driving needs to be considered on its own merit, not linked to an RTC, not linked to level of injury, but linked solely to the substandard nature of the driving. We need to remind our supervisors and our prosecution departments of this. They are not paid well to have an easy life!

In Cumbria we have a traffic group which has largely retained its numbers over the last 10 years, and we have a strong leadership which sees the value of road policing related to risk and criminality. Most of our traffic bases are also contained in the same office block as our prosecution department and CPS, so we can and do discuss cases fairly in depth and on a regular basis. Our police prosecution decision maker and his depute are ex traffic, which also helps, and the head of CPS in Cumbria is refreshingly stubborn in his desire to see the more serious traffic offences prosecuted when serious injury or death has occurred.

So stop your drivers and interview them, gain and submit best evidence and discuss it with CPS and supervision. You can make a difference to the way they perceive things.

To answer your question, I’d expect about 50% of my RTC 'due cares' to go to driver improvement course, and the remaining 50% would be prosecuted.

Most of my non-RTC 'due cares' will either get a letter of caution or be prosecuted. (again probably 50:50). If it is believed that there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, the prosecution dept will discuss the matter with me to see if it can be firmed up in any way.

It is obviously alot different up North. Did you know, In one London borough, that shall remain nameless, people that are reported for No Insurance or Not in Accordance with Licence are not prosecuted. The reason soley being lack of resources in the Traffic CJU to deal with it?

[martine]

[Did you know, In one London borough, that shall remain nameless, people that are reported for No Insurance or Not in Accordance with Licence are not prosecuted. The reason soley being lack of resources in the Traffic CJU to deal with it?

That's shocking (but I'm quite nieve about these sorts of things).

I quite agree with Soren's rant as well. I generally support Speed Cameras but I'm sure most people on this forum would much prefer more traffic cops (I realise they cost lots more).

Every time I drive around Bristol I see examples of driving without due care or worse (breaking red lights, aggresive lane changes, tail-gating, grossly over speed limit etc). With this level and frequency of transgression (every time I drive), law abiding and safe drivers begin to dispair and that only leads to road rage, police in disrepute etc.

Why should I pay more on my insurance to contribute to those that don't have any? Why should aggresive, bad and downright rude drivers get away with it - which is the common conception.

Phew...that's better!

[Porker]

Top marks to Soren on that last post, and I have to say I'm very much in agreement.

It does feel as though we're heading (if we've not already reached) a system which prefers to prosecute that which is administratively easy, and/or easy to measure, rather than focusing on the truly bad driving behaviours - including inappropriate speed within the limit - which IMO are most likely to cause crashes.

This begs the question - why?

Porker

[BillZZR600]

Top marks to Soren on that last post, and I have to say I'm very much in agreement.

It does feel as though we're heading (if we've not already reached) a system which prefers to prosecute that which is administratively easy, and/or easy to measure, rather than focusing on the truly bad driving behaviours - including inappropriate speed within the limit - which IMO are most likely to cause crashes.

This begs the question - why?

Porker

I'll second that!!!!
But in answer to why, I should think it is, as so much of life these days,
Maximum Result for Minimum Effort at Minimum Cost= Good Performance Indicators/Statistics

Prosecute 1 and win 1 Means 100% clear up rate
Prosecute 2 and win 1 means only 50% success rate
So as Soren says, if there are no reports for potential prosecutions then there are no statistics to show that there is a problem that requires resources to deal with it so there is no need to expend Effort and Resources in fixing a problem that doesnt statistically exist.

[Roadcraft]

I want to 'have' him next please..

[Søren]

I want to 'have' him next please..

[confused]:? [/confused]

[Roadcraft]

I want to 'have' him next please..

[confused]:? [/confused]

it was my tongue in cheek sarcasm mate..

I was jumping a ride on "HMS Obsequious"....

Don't mind me..and my sledgehammer comments..

[Søren]

I think on due care cases (which are not borderline dangerous) then there's a big role for Education rather than Enforcement.

A stop and chat is one way. "Watch this video of yourself being a prat". Another is being brought in for interview some time later. A letter warning about their driving perhaps a lesser effect.

If people won't learn then punish them.

Absolutely.

we have a prime opportunity to dish out some good advice along with a bit of acid tongue to those whom we feel deserve it. We have some discretion to deal with matters the way we think appropriate for the best result.
But my impression of what has been said thus far is that there is a chasm between the driving we as traffic cops feel is worthy of due care, and those that some CPSs and prosecution departments feel deserve due process.

This does need to be addressed if our road policing credibility is to be valued and improved.

[Søren]

I want to 'have' him next please..

[confused]:? [/confused]

it was my tongue in cheek sarcasm mate..

I was jumping a ride on "HMS Obsequious"....

Don't mind me..and my sledgehammer comments..

Ah I see!

I won't mind you then.

[Roadcraft]

Good man..

[Prelude]

'Obsequious'

Don't usually hear that word in general conversation! Mind you, I hear polticians speak in 'pragmatic' tones, yet still haven't a clue what pragmatic means!! Can anyone be pragmatic and shed some illumination on such a ubiquitious politicised term?! Any insolent and subordinate answers will be welcomed!

[TripleS]

'Obsequious'

Don't usually hear that word in general conversation! Mind you, I hear polticians speak in 'pragmatic' tones, yet still haven't a clue what pragmatic means!! Can anyone be pragmatic and shed some illumination on such a ubiquitious politicised term?! Any insolent and subordinate answers will be welcomed!

On another forum a few months ago one fellow accused me of being obsequious. I thought I was merely being polite and civilised, which is a style he has been known to depart from markedly at times. Shame really - being rude doesn't add any validity to the point being made. It can actually detract from it, which is counterproductive.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Søren]

'Obsequious'

Don't usually hear that word in general conversation! Mind you, I hear polticians speak in 'pragmatic' tones, yet still haven't a clue what pragmatic means!! Can anyone be pragmatic and shed some illumination on such a ubiquitious politicised term?! Any insolent and subordinate answers will be welcomed!

On another forum a few months ago one fellow accused me of being obsequious. I thought I was merely being polite and civilised, which is a style he has been known to depart from markedly at times. Shame really - being rude doesn't add any validity to the point being made. It can actually detract from it, which is counterproductive.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

It is a shame that sarcasm all too often takes the place of a reasoned answer.