NIP for dangerous driving

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Children and fluffy bunnies

I am ok that you mention the children, and the police are quietly using their tasars against them, but leave the pink fluffy bunnies out of it.

thescouselander

no1catman wrote: »

Your 'mate' may have said what happened - but the Police may have a different more involved view on the sequence of events!
But then again maybe I've been watching too many 'Traffic Cops" and "Police Interceptors"!

These programmes are interesting. I've seen episodes where a driver has been filmed going over 100 mph in residential areas and smashing into things. Yet at the end you find out they weren't charged due to lack of evidence. In that basis it's difficult to think how anyone makes it to court.

N9eav

tgon wrote: »

This is pretty much how it was described. There were no other cars except the dothering old lady, him and the cop car he failed to notice behind him. They weren't ordinary traffic cops cause they arrested him on the spot, read him his rights, took some details and set him in his way again.

And, yeah, l know the "mate" story sounds lame but it was actually a mate in his white van today. Bad combo

I doubt he was arrested.


I suspect that your mate was stopped by 2 armed response officers who saw what they believed was a moving traffic offence.
They stopped him and informed him that they were reporting him for consideration of prosecuting him for an offence of dangerous driving. (NIP) He was then cautioned, so that any reply he made could be used as evidence.


That report paperwork will go off to some traffic office somewhere in that force area and a decision will be made to prosecute or not.


If no then you will hear nothing which is a !!!!!! as you would like to know that. If yes, as the others have stated they have 6 months to prosecute, but more often or not he would hear something in the next 2-4 weeks. It does not necessarily mean that it will be a dangerous driving summons either.

Spicy_McHaggis

N9eav wrote: »

I doubt he was arrested.


I suspect that your mate was stopped by 2 armed response officers who saw what they believed was a moving traffic offence.
They stopped him and informed him that they were reporting him for consideration of prosecuting him for an offence of dangerous driving. (NIP) He was then cautioned, so that any reply he made could be used as evidence.


That report paperwork will go off to some traffic office somewhere in that force area and a decision will be made to prosecute or not.


If no then you will hear nothing which is a !!!!!! as you would like to know that. If yes, as the others have stated they have 6 months to prosecute, but more often or not he would hear something in the next 2-4 weeks. It does not necessarily mean that it will be a dangerous driving summons either.

No that wrong as someone has already pointed out, there is no time limit for dangerous driving.

IamNotAllowedToUseMyName

FWIW, the difference between careless driving and dangerous driving is that careless is below the standard of a careful and considerate driver, dangerous is far below.

The problem for your friend is that he made a deliberate decision to go on the wrong side of the road, where he may not have been able to see why little old lady was dithering, and may have caused an accident if dithering lady was plucking up courage to turn right. It is the obviously deliberate ignoring of the road markings and overtaking of the other car that moves it from careless to dangerous.

I would guess that matey didn't pull up behind and then decide after some time it was appropriate to pull around the obstruction, but actually made an early decision to go around the L O L - that would not help as it takes away the excuse of properly assessing that there was a problem and the L O L was obstructing the highway.

facade

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Failing to spot a copper behind you is driving without due care or attention. When I'm blasting along, I'm constantly looking out for the following hazards...

Police cars
Speed cameras
Children and fluffy bunnies

In that order.

If you lived round here it would be

Temporary traffic lights for no apparent reason
Mini Islands that were not there yesterday :eek:
ROAD CLOSED signs
DIVERSION signs (only one, you never see another)
Massive speed humps
Bottomless potholes
Screws & bolts
Lakes of diesel
Police Cars
Speed Cameras
People who are not looking pulling out under your front bumper
Cyclists riding off the pavement
Nice Doggies
Children
Fluffy bunnies
Nuns

matttye

Johnmcl7 wrote: »

If your friend was pulled by the police then there won't be a NIP in the post as he'll have already received a verbal NIP. if the CPS decide to prosecute they have six months from the offence date to lay the information to the court which means it would be around six to eight months before the court summons arrives which will have the charges on it. If it is dangerous driving he's summoned for then it's likely legal advice would be a good idea as on conviction it carries a minimum one year driving ban - http://forums.pepipoo.com is a very useful place for motoring legal advice.

facade wrote: »

As he was spoken to by the Police at the time, there is no need for an NIP, and they have 6 months to lay the paperwork for a summons, so he has to wait quite some time.

EDIT: John is quicker than me...

The 6 month time limit only applies to summary only offences and dangerous driving is either way/indictable.

AdrianC

thescouselander wrote: »

These programmes are interesting. I've seen episodes where a driver has been filmed going over 100 mph in residential areas and smashing into things. Yet at the end you find out they weren't charged due to lack of evidence. In that basis it's difficult to think how anyone makes it to court.

It'd be a lot easier if you stopped believing things on TV.

Edwood_Woodwood

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

Failing to spot a copper behind you is driving without due care or attention. When I'm blasting along, I'm constantly looking out for the following hazards...

Police cars
Speed cameras
Children and fluffy bunnies

In that order.

Why are you looking out for speed cameras & children in your rear view mirror?:huh:

tgon

Thanks for all good replies. He thinks they were armed response cops. He did a momentary stupid move and knows it. It's out of character but will just see what happens next and deal with it. DD is such a broad offence it really is difficult to know how it will play out.