ADUK Archive

hi guys its been ages since ive posted on here. just thought id tell you all of something that happened the other day.(sorry it a long one)
I was driving down cwys in cardiff (dont know if any of you know it) road, a reasonably built up area i was coming to a hump in the road this hump has two small traffic islands on it it was about 8.30 at night and dark i was cresting this hump and about 1 meter away from the first traffic island, when a car coming the other way, in my eyes obviously speeding hit one of the traffic islands this flipped his car over in the air and it flew over the drivers side of my car-my car is a daihatsu copen so is quite low but he must have been 4-5inches from hitting the roof. he came at the traffic island at such an angle as if it was not there he would have hit me head-on. He landed on the roof of his car and slid down the other side of the hump luckly there is a police station and he slid and stopped outside it. i pulled into the bus lane stopped and got out and ran to the other car. To my amaisment the 3 cars behind him just carried on, the dust had not settled from the "explosion" of concrete(which has dented my car) they were dragging parts of his bodywork down the road! looking at his car the passenger side was compleatly destroyed luckely there was just a driver he got out looking very pale and a nasty cut on his head, 2 police officers came out of the station there was already 20 people crowding around, the police cleared the people away and i called the male officer over and, after pointing out the man of the crashed cars bag on the floor and his phone on the floor (still halfway through a text) told him that i saw what happened he told me to return to my car drive around the block and park outside the police station. i did this then found him again, he then took my details and that was it. 4days later i had not been contacted so went to the police station they told me that this was the second person to crash into it in 4 months, they took a statement from me then asked for my licence, proof that the vehicle was mine and also my insurance, i had my details for the car and my card part of my licence, so i was then given a producer, i was totaly amaised by this were they trying to catch me out? i still have not heard from the police as to what has happened or had any contact from them. is this all normal practice?

Standard procedure if they report an collision to give a producer to all parties.

Yes I can imagine it seems a bit surprising since you were just a witness but I suppose the police need to gather all the facts together before deciding how to proceed.

Must have been quite shocking to see it all going on around you...not something you'd build into a commentary..."anticipating low flying cars so..."

I am sure they will be in contact but it wouldn't do any harm to contact them to ask what's going on - I expect you've already contacted your insurance company and you have a legitimate reason to be kept informed.

Why is it standard procedure to give out a producer. All of the information they require should be available on the computer.

Red Herring wrote:Why is it standard procedure to give out a producer. All of the information they require should be available on the computer.

Because the computer may not have all the information they require.
If he produces all of his documents there & then satisfactorily, then they wouldn't issue a producer.

I agree there may be occasion when it is necessary to issue a producer but my point is that it shouldn't be standard procedure. I would suggest that it is the exception when it is necessary, rather than the rule.

Red Herring wrote:I agree there may be occasion when it is necessary to issue a producer but my point is that it shouldn't be standard procedure. I would suggest that it is the exception when it is necessary, rather than the rule.

Most people don't tend to carry both parts of their driving licence, so more often than not a producer will be given for it.

Why does the driver have to produce both parts of their driving licence? All of the information on the counterpart is held on the PNC so the officer can check it them-self, without having to risk alienating and inconveniencing the member of the public. I appreciate there is a power to require a driver to produce their licence, however the automatic use of this power when it is unnecessary suggests either laziness on the part of the officer or ignorance on the part of the organization. Here is a driver who through no fault of their own has become a victim and a witness to anothers' lawbreaking and yet the police make him feel if as if he is now somehow under scrutiny himself. I accept there is a need to record all details, however there are ways of doing things....

Red Herring wrote:Why does the driver have to produce both parts of their driving licence? All of the information on the counterpart is held on the PNC so the officer can check it them-self, without having to risk alienating and inconveniencing the member of the public. I appreciate there is a power to require a driver to produce their licence, however the automatic use of this power when it is unnecessary suggests either laziness on the part of the officer or ignorance on the part of the organization. Here is a driver who through no fault of their own has become a victim and a witness to anothers' lawbreaking and yet the police make him feel if as if he is now somehow under scrutiny himself. I accept there is a need to record all details, however there are ways of doing things....

You've said yourself the computer isn't always accurate, so you cross reference what is physically produced with what is believed through other channels. At the point the producer is issued the matter is still under investigation & all parties involved must be checked, just as all should also be breathalysed.

vonhosen wrote: just as all should also be breathalysed.

Under what justification?

If I were in the situation of witnessing and accident, and thought that doing the "right" thing of staying to provide evidence would lead to this much hassle, being breathalysed and treated like a criminal then if I wasn't such an upstanding and honest citizen I'd be tempted to clear off.

Perhaps this is why so few people hung around after animalkits near miss...

Octy_Ross wrote:Under what justification?

If I were in the situation of witnessing and accident, and thought that doing the "right" thing of staying to provide evidence would lead to this much hassle, being breathalysed and treated like a criminal then if I wasn't such an upstanding and honest citizen I'd be tempted to clear off.

Comes with the territory, comrade. Just think yourself lucky they aren't yet asking for a DNA sample for the national database...

Last time I stopped at the scene of an accident (a few years ago) - I'd just been overtaken by someone who then plowed into a car pulling out of a junction across the main road. Police took a statement from me, but didn't bother asking for any of my documentation - although I wasn't directly invovled.

Octy_Ross wrote:

vonhosen wrote: just as all should also be breathalysed.

Under what justification?

If I were in the situation of witnessing and accident, and thought that doing the "right" thing of staying to provide evidence would lead to this much hassle, being breathalysed and treated like a criminal then if I wasn't such an upstanding and honest citizen I'd be tempted to clear off.

Perhaps this is why so few people hung around after animalkits near miss...

I think we are getting crossed purposes here.

Those involved in the collision (which may include those involved but haven't actually hit anything) are required to provide a breath sample. Not those who are 'only' witnesses.

Hey Von-Hosen,

I see your point, if someone were to be involved, despite not being the "wrong doer" they should be breathalysed, just in case. But for what purpose, I'm not sure I see the value in it. Is it just a convenient "we've got the kit out so lets do 'em all" type approach or is there something more to it?

Does this mean, then, if someone who isn't drunk (A) causes an accident, by crashing into a not doing anything wrong* drunk driver (B). Could A then be 'let off' as they hit B or would they still be up for some kind of trouble?

In the case of animal - his vehicle was hit by flying debris, surely in this situation there would be no need to breathalyse him?

* I was going to put 'safe' in stead of 'not doing anything wrong' but decided I'd probably be reminded that there's no such thing as a safe drunk driver....

Octy_Ross wrote:Hey Von-Hosen,

I see your point, if someone were to be involved, despite not being the "wrong doer" they should be breathalysed, just in case. But for what purpose, I'm not sure I see the value in it. Is it just a convenient "we've got the kit out so lets do 'em all" type approach or is there something more to it?

Does this mean, then, if someone who isn't drunk (A) causes an accident, by crashing into a not doing anything wrong* drunk driver (B). Could A then be 'let off' as they hit B or would they still be up for some kind of trouble?

In the case of animal - his vehicle was hit by flying debris, surely in this situation there would be no need to breathalyse him?

* I was going to put 'safe' in stead of 'not doing anything wrong' but decided I'd probably be reminded that there's no such thing as a safe drunk driver....

It's to make sure there aren't cross allegations later surrounding drink drive & a lack of police action in respect of it.

If the presence of a motor vehicle on a road is a factor in a collision, then the driver of that vehicle has obligations under the road traffic act & the Police have standard operating procedures in relation to dealing with the parties involved.

All parties can be dealt with for whatever offences are apparent from dealing with them.
If 'A' is sober but causes a collision with 'B', 'A' can be dealt with for whatever offences are apparent.
If the manner of 'B's driving was not a contributory factor, but he is over the drink drive limit, he will still be charged with drink drive.

Can the officer demand production of the licence even though the person isn't a driver at the time when the production is required?

I understand that a constable can demand to see a licence, but not of a person who is not driving...(or supervising a learner). How proximate in time does the demand need to be? Is there a requirement to keep a licence?