Driving without due care and attention.

stator

Nasqueron wrote: »

Not at all, I was a young driver, I know full well I did stupid things.

What you're forgetting is that the Police are prosecuting for driving without due care and attention

OP's son went out driving at lunch time rather than stay in school, he did something stupid and got caught and now he's got a sob story to tell to naive old mum, "like I totally saw a nun pushing a pram of babies all holding kittens and she was all over the road whichever way I swerved and then she vanished into thin air". There's no reason for a school kid to go out driving at lunch time and he did something stupid and got caught and should own up and accept his punishment

I hope you never sit on a jury. You assume that the police are always correct and infallible.

martinsurrey

stator wrote: »

I hope you never sit on a jury. You assume that the police are always correct and infallible.

The evidence we have

1) A second hand account of an event from a related party of the person involved, who is obviously inclined to play down their own fault and the second hand wants to see the best in their son.

2) Impartial intent from the Police who have viewed it first hand.

Its not assuming that the Police are always right to think that there is more to this story than the OP knows.

Nasqueron

stator wrote: »

I hope you never sit on a jury. You assume that the police are always correct and infallible.

I hope you take logic lessons soon. You don't know what a strawman is

Given the police were not there and have viewed a video of it and made the call I trust them over a 17/18 year old boy racer

Retrogamer

We don't know for sure if he he's a "boy racer" or not, but i agree it sounds unlikely the accident happened trying to avoid an animal on the road.

If the OP is still looking for accurate advice from people with lots of experience in similar matters, i suggest posting on Pepipoo.

stator

martinsurrey wrote: »

The evidence we have

1) A second hand account of an event from a related party of the person involved, who is obviously inclined to play down their own fault and the second hand wants to see the best in their son.

2) Impartial intent from the Police who have viewed it first hand.

Its not assuming that the Police are always right to think that there is more to this story than the OP knows.

Police 'Impartial' haha!
Until you have seen that video you have no idea what's on it, or what you can see. Maybe the police are making stupid assumptions about what happened like the people on this forum.
The police certainly do have an attitude problem with young people, much like this forum, assuming that all young people are boy racers.

DoaM

I reckon there was an animal there ... in the imagination of the boy racer who was high on weed at the time.

Well, if we're going to speculate ........

rich13348

stator wrote: »

Police 'Impartial' haha!
Until you have seen that video you have no idea what's on it, or what you can see. Maybe the police are making stupid assumptions about what happened like the people on this forum.
The police certainly do have an attitude problem with young people, much like this forum, assuming that all young people are boy racers.

So what you are saying is the police employ someone to sit and watch a bunch of video feeds and wait until a young driver passes and then find a reason to book him?

martinsurrey

stator wrote: »

Police 'Impartial' haha!
Until you have seen that video you have no idea what's on it, or what you can see. Maybe the police are making stupid assumptions about what happened like the people on this forum.
The police certainly do have an attitude problem with young people, much like this forum, assuming that all young people are boy racers.

The police AND the CPS

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/performance/case_outcomes/2016_06/national.pdf

About 84% of motoring offences that go to trial result in a prosecution, and that's just those that make it to trial, how many more do the police "win" before trial, or offenders plead guilty?

So, I don't really care about the age of the driver, but there is more to this story than we know, and you're right we cant say anything based on what we know, so OP will get zero useful advice, as we cant believe anything they write (as we haven't seen it), so, best get their court shoes ready.

Car_54

stator wrote: »

Police 'Impartial' haha!
Until you have seen that video you have no idea what's on it, or what you can see. Maybe the police are making stupid assumptions about what happened like the people on this forum.
The police certainly do have an attitude problem with young people, much like this forum, assuming that all young people are boy racers.

What is not in dispute is that the lad veered across the road and collided with the kerb. It doesn't need an "attitude" or a stupid assumption on the part of the police to view that as prima facie evidence of careless driving, or worse.

stator

rich13348 wrote: »

So what you are saying is the police employ someone to sit and watch a bunch of video feeds and wait until a young driver passes and then find a reason to book him?

Don't make stuff up