Accident caused by driver on phone - police not interested!

Tilt

brat wrote: »

Not patronising, i occasionally get a bit irked by people who (through ignorance) question the integrity of my colleagues.

If the officer was considering dangerous driving, everything fits. He would have to take CPS advice. CPS would have decided that the evidence was not strong enough for any prosecution for the offences you mentioned. He would have explained that to you.

It's a simple, acceptable answer. So much so that I wonder why you have convinced yourself that lying (and putting his job at risk) was the most reasonable explanation.

With respect (and i'm sure you don't fall into the same bracket), I know (from experience, not ignorance) that the "integrity of SOME of your colleagues" is definitely questionable.

As for it being a case of dangerous driving, well I would say it was more a case of either reckless or careless driving, especially as he collided with another vehicle.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

Maybe but isn't it what they get paid for? But this is one of my pet hates. I would of thought as the offence is sufficient enough to attract points, the police would of jumped on him/her.

I wouldn't always stop to deal. Often if the car is parked and unattended, I might ask a town foot patrol to keep an eye on it, or even to go and give it a ticket, rather than obstruct the road. Most of the time we're engaged in other duties. Many officers have jobs stacked up that are more significant to the victim than a zig zag offender.

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

With respect (and i'm sure you don't fall into the same bracket), I know (from experience, not ignorance) that the "integrity of SOME of your colleagues" is definitely questionable.

As for it being a case of dangerous driving, well I would say it was more a case of either reckless or careless driving, especially as he collided with another vehicle.

Reckless was replaced from dangerous some years ago.

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Yes, it's three points but what you have to realise is many officers don't consider traffic to be real policing and the fact that messing about with TROs puts them off even more.
Then having completed and recommending proceeding, someone else decides they get a course as the will bring the best financial return for the force.

I do realise that BUT it's their duty to deal with someone blatantly breaking the law, surely? The police car in question actually pulled out slightly to get past the offending car. AND it was right outside a school.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

I wouldn't always stop to deal. Often if the car is parked and unattended, I might ask a town foot patrol to keep an eye on it, or even to go and give it a ticket, rather than obstruct the road. Most of the time we're engaged in other duties. Many officers have jobs stacked up that are more significant to the victim than a zig zag offender.

Really?? And what about the victim who could possibly get knocked down on the crossing because they couldn't be see the approaching traffic because some selfish inconsiderate person was parked obscuring the view of the crossing? I thought part of the duty of the police is to prevent these things happening? As I said, this crossing is right outside a school and I have reported MANY times to both the LA and the police about people who regularly park illegally on the crossing. So you can imagine my disappointment when I saw the police actually drive by when there was a culprit right under their noses.

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

I do realise that BUT it's their duty to deal with someone blatantly breaking the law, surely? The police car in question actually pulled out slightly to get past the offending car. AND it was right outside a school.

Prevention and detection of crime comes in at number 3 in the role of a constable.

So you can see how dealing with non recordable crime is low on priorities. As brat said they may have more important things to deal with. Whether a pet hate of yours or not.

I bet it's the same in your job, you prioritise your work load.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

With respect (and i'm sure you don't fall into the same bracket), I know (from experience, not ignorance) that the "integrity of SOME of your colleagues" is definitely questionable.

I know that too. You only have to listen to the news. I just wondered why you jumped on thatexplanation when others were more likely.

Tilt wrote: »

As for it being a case of dangerous driving, well I would say it was more a case of either reckless or careless driving, especially as he collided with another vehicle.

You mentioned dangerous earlier. I can only go on what you tell me. Reckless driving is the old (pre 91) offence of 'dangerous' driving. The officer may have felt that the combination of the one way street, careless plus fail to stop might aggravate the primary offence towards dangerous, hence the CPS involvement.

Spicy_McHaggis

Tilt wrote: »

Really?? And what about the victim who could possibly get knocked down on the crossing because they couldn't be see the approaching traffic because some selfish inconsiderate person was parked obscuring the view of the crossing? I thought part of the duty of the police is to prevent these things happening? As I said, this crossing is right outside a school and I have reported MANY times to both the LA and the police about people who regularly park illegally on the crossing. So you can imagine my disappointment when I saw the police actually drive by when there was a culprit right under their noses.

Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

My bet is the local officers think you're a knob..

I don't mean to be personally offensive to you but we all know what they say about the regular moaners.

Tilt

Spicy_McHaggis wrote: »

Ever heard of the boy who cried wolf?

My bet is the local officers think you're a knob..

I don't mean to be personally offensive to you but we all know what they say about the regular moaners.

Lol, wonder what they will think if and when (God forbid) a child gets run over on the crossing because of a parked car. Believe me, it will be in the papers that I have bought the problem (even provided the VRMs of the "regular offenders") to the attention of the relevant authorities if it does happen. Then they will no doubt think i'm a knob!

But it's not just the police who aren't showing an interest, it's the LA as well although occasionally you will see a CEO outside the school when (obviously) there isn't a problem.

In my opinion, all pedestrian crossings and school entrance markings should be covered by CCTV enforcement. Problem would then be solved without the need to disrupt the police's doughnut breaks.

Car_54

Tilt wrote: »

Really?? And what about the victim who could possibly get knocked down on the crossing because they couldn't be see the approaching traffic because some selfish inconsiderate person was parked obscuring the view of the crossing? I thought part of the duty of the police is to prevent these things happening? As I said, this crossing is right outside a school and I have reported MANY times to both the LA and the police about people who regularly park illegally on the crossing. So you can imagine my disappointment when I saw the police actually drive by when there was a culprit right under their noses.

They might have been on their way to a murder, rape, armed robbery ...

If you were the victim of one of those* you wouldn't be best pleased if the police arrived late because they were dealing with a traffic offence.

* Except murder, obviously.