PLEASE HELP WITH ADVICE - taken to court

BigTrouble_2

flower7 wrote: »

Shame they are in the time limit but I think you really should fight this. It sounds like you did everything you were supposed to do as a driver.

That's exactly my thoughts - that I did all I should have done. I braked immediately, I steered the car but he was too close. So all I could do was minimise the damage.

I just don't know why the witnesses are saying such things. They all insist that I was on the wrong side of the road - but there were cars parked to the left, I 've driven this road a thousand times before, everyone there knows that drivers get on the wrong side just to pass through and that's what I did. I left more room to my left to account for vehicles taking off, for opening doors so I was to the right side and there were no cars coming towards me and I was ready to give way if I had to.

But the witnesses all say that I was plainly driving on the wrong side of the road and the boy ran from the right. So clearly at fault.

flower7

yes go to the school and try and find other parents who saw this at least it might reassure you that you are correct and you might find extra back up.

even if you were on the wrong side of the road you were still driving slowly the child should have looked both ways seen a moving car and not run or walked out into the road. So not your fault.

Also take lots of photos of what you are describing the parked cars etc the reasons you had to drive slightly on the wrong side because you were being careful.

A good defence should ask you for these things anyway.

spaceman5

i think finding out where he was hit is going to be the key to this, as if you can prove his statement and the other 5 statements got this basic fundamental and in a way pivotal point wrong, then it will be hard to believe the rest of what the statements say, as like i said before if you hit him on his right, this proves he was coming from the left, unless he tries claiming he was walking/running backwards:eek:

vaio

Assuming it wasn’t on a pedestrian crossing or similar then I’d have thought that if someone runs/walks out into a stream of traffic and the driver does his best to avoid a collision but fails then the starting point is no driver fault.

Presumably if charges have been brought then they think that you fell below the required standard. Do they give an specific information on this?

BigTrouble_2

vaio wrote: »

Assuming it wasn’t on a pedestrian crossing or similar then I’d have thought that if someone runs/walks out into a stream of traffic and the driver does his best to avoid a collision but fails then the starting point is no driver fault.

Presumably if charges have been brought then they think that you fell below the required standard. Do they give an specific information on this?

The witness statements say that I was driving on the wrong (right) side of the road and was trying to overtake the moving traffic when the child was crossing (he says 'walking').

My version is that I was in the middle/right side of the road at that particular point because there were cars parked to my left with people around them so I was giving them room and driving on the other side, ready to give way to the upcoming traffic - the road was ahead of me and no traffic was approaching at that point. I was not trying to overtake - not at the speed of 15-20 mph anyway. The child ran out in front of my car and I saw him running so I did the best I could to minimise the damage.

They also claim that he ran off from the right whereas I am sure that he ran from the left.

I cannot be certain but I think that the 'wrong side of the road' and 'overtaking the moving traffic' were the points of conviction. Coupled with the boy's statement that he was crossing with care and looked both sides.

BigTrouble_2

And it was right outside the school (even though the child is not from that school) - which must be an aggravating circumstance.

And the fact that it was a child.

That's what I am thinking.

TonyMMM

No it will not mean you have a Criminal Record - that term is used incorrectly very often, but actually only relates to offences which are recordable on the Police National Computer (and for which the police consequently have power to take fingerprints/DNA).

It is however an "offence" that is recorded (if found guilty) ...in this case on your driving history by DVLA (which is where the points come in).

spaceman5

this is not a school near me in somerset is it, the school my kids go to is a nightmare to get to both in the morning and after school, cars all over the place, and normally there is one of those community police officers there, but he is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard

BigTrouble_2

TonyMMM wrote: »

No it will not mean you have a Criminal Record - that term is used incorrectly very often, but actually only relates to offences which are recordable on the Police National Computer (and for which the police consequently have power to take fingerprints/DNA).

It is however an "offence" that is recorded (if found guilty) ...in this case on your driving history by DVLA (which is where the points come in).

Thank you very much - I do hope you are right (I will double-check with the solicitor tomorrow)!

I can live with points on my licence but I am terrified at the thought of a criminal record.

TonyMMM

BigTrouble wrote: »

Thank you very much - I do hope you are right (I will double-check with the solicitor tomorrow)!

I can live with points on my licence but I am terrified at the thought of a criminal record.

The problem is that there is actually no such thing as a proper definition of a "Criminal Record" .... it is true that driving offences can be dealt with in a Criminal Court under criminal law (as yours is) ....but the Criminal Records Bureau use the definiton of "a record of convictions held on the Police National Computer for individuals convicted of crimes."

Your driving offence of "Without Due Care" is not one that is recordable on the PNC.