NIP - Driving without due care and attention

[Nasher]

They will need some kind of proof or reliable witnesses for it to stick if you appeal it (you should). If he decided to cross in a stupid spot then it's his fault.

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

I know someone who was done for dangerous , similar situation(ish)
He took offence at being overtaken by a motorbike and drove dangerously by driving really close to the bike through the next village

He got a NIP, went to court and found out the biker was an off duty police. He did pick up points for this.

There is some extra "weight" given to police testimony. I would say the dashcam footage is crucial.

 

[ShiWarrior]

I know someone who was done for dangerous , similar situation(ish)
He took offence at being overtaken by a motorbike and drove dangerously by driving really close to the bike through the next village

He got a NIP, went to court and found out the biker was an off duty police. He did pick up points for this.

There is some extra "weight" given to police testimony. I would say the dashcam footage is crucial.

same as OP ? (date to attend court ?)

can you upload video ?

 

[Dangerous Dave]

Highly likely going to be an off duty police officer who reported this, make sure you have multiple backups of the video.

On the NIP they should have had the time/location of the alleged offence to help identify who was driving this should help confirm if it does relate to the event you think it does. If it doesn't ask for more information to help identify who was driving.

 

[ShiWarrior]

@Burnsy2023 , can you shed some light please ?

 

[Adam]

Just to confirm some points made in the thread so far.

• All we have received so far is a letter (an application for the identity of the driver) asking us to confirm who was driving the car (we returned this immediately as I can't imagine there is anything to gain by not doing so)
• The letter is titled "intention to prosecute) and the offence is "drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care and attention"
• The location, time etc all correspond with the dash cam footage
• My wife was not on the phone or distracted (she is ultra over the top safe which is why it's quite amusing this has happened. I've been sending her "how to prepare for prison" links/videos )
• She was in our 2nd car (Focus 1.0 ecoboost) so hardly anything that would attract attention
• The NIP is dated 3 days after the offence took place
• I've purposefully not posted the footage as I'm not sure if I can given it may be used as evidence

While a driving awareness course wouldn't be the end of the world (still have to pay £100 for the privilege) it seems slightly unfair based on the footage. I think she would probably take that rather than fight it in court which on one hand I can understand but the other I think we have great evidence.

The only other scenario I can think of is that perhaps one of the 2 cars going the other way have seen this guy waving his arms with his child, thought they were in distress and stopped to speak to them. Perhaps they had a dash cam themselves. I know things can look different from another perspective so perhaps it did look differently to the oncoming traffic? I've just got a hunch the guy is a policeman though.

Either way we'll see if we hear anything or get any more details of the allegation. Thanks for the help so far!

 

[Stu999]

Does your dash cam show the speed that your wife was travelling?

 

[Adam]

Does your dash cam show the speed that your wife was travelling?

Unfortunately not, it doesn't have GPS but the quality is excellent.

 

[Resident]

Just to confirm some points made in the thread so far.

• All we have received so far is a letter (an application for the identity of the driver) asking us to confirm who was driving the car (we returned this immediately as I can't imagine there is anything to gain by not doing so)
• The letter is titled "intention to prosecute) and the offence is "drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care and attention"
• The location, time etc all correspond with the dash cam footage
• My wife was not on the phone or distracted (she is ultra over the top safe which is why it's quite amusing this has happened. I've been sending her "how to prepare for prison" links/videos )
• She was in our 2nd car (Focus 1.0 ecoboost) so hardly anything that would attract attention
• The NIP is dated 3 days after the offence took place
• I've purposefully not posted the footage as I'm not sure if I can given it may be used as evidence

While a driving awareness course wouldn't be the end of the world (still have to pay £100 for the privilege) it seems slightly unfair based on the footage. I think she would probably take that rather than fight it in court which on one hand I can understand but the other I think we have great evidence.

The only other scenario I can think of is that perhaps one of the 2 cars going the other way have seen this guy waving his arms with his child, thought they were in distress and stopped to speak to them. Perhaps they had a dash cam themselves. I know things can look different from another perspective so perhaps it did look differently to the oncoming traffic? I've just got a hunch the guy is a policeman though.

Either way we'll see if we hear anything or get any more details of the allegation. Thanks for the help so far!

Personally with all the above I'd speak with a solicitor.

Given what you've said, this sounds more like an off-duty cop trying to swing his little richard because she didn't stop to let him cross, despite her having no obligation to.

 

[jpaul]

I'd probably recce the route/google-streetview and make the speed calculation yourself. - must have done that I imagine

I've been sending her "how to prepare for prison" links/videos

big stan - great film too

 

[Dis86]

I reckon she's the woman from @Rroff 's video!

 

[Stu999]

I reckon she's the woman from @Rroff 's video!

LOL, just read that thread this morning.

 

[Burnsy2023]

@Burnsy2023 , can you shed some light please ?

Roger that.

I’m not sure, presumably they would have reviewed the statement and decided there was something in it hence sending the request to identity who was driving. I’d be very surprised if we go through that process and then not hear anything again. I do agree with you though, hence why I think it’s an off duty policeman as if a member of the public were to make a report I can’t see it would be followed up on given the police’s resources unless there were multiple witnesses or some form of evidence? It even crossed my mind if the letter was genuine but everything seemed to match up when I googled it and it was sent to me as I’m the registered owner.

I would concur with the above. Police wouldn't process a report from a member of the public without clear video footage which shows a easily prosecutable offence, or without significant aggravating factors. It's going to be an off duty officer.

Given what you've said, this sounds more like an off-duty cop trying to swing his little richard because she didn't stop to let him cross, despite her having no obligation to.

Depending on the specifics, such as being on a junction, it may be that the pedestrian has priority. See highway code rule 170.

Just to confirm some points made in the thread so far.

• All we have received so far is a letter (an application for the identity of the driver) asking us to confirm who was driving the car (we returned this immediately as I can't imagine there is anything to gain by not doing so)
• The letter is titled "intention to prosecute) and the offence is "drive a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road / in a public place without due care and attention"
• The location, time etc all correspond with the dash cam footage
• My wife was not on the phone or distracted (she is ultra over the top safe which is why it's quite amusing this has happened. I've been sending her "how to prepare for prison" links/videos )
• She was in our 2nd car (Focus 1.0 ecoboost) so hardly anything that would attract attention
• The NIP is dated 3 days after the offence took place
• I've purposefully not posted the footage as I'm not sure if I can given it may be used as evidence

While a driving awareness course wouldn't be the end of the world (still have to pay £100 for the privilege) it seems slightly unfair based on the footage. I think she would probably take that rather than fight it in court which on one hand I can understand but the other I think we have great evidence.

The only other scenario I can think of is that perhaps one of the 2 cars going the other way have seen this guy waving his arms with his child, thought they were in distress and stopped to speak to them. Perhaps they had a dash cam themselves. I know things can look different from another perspective so perhaps it did look differently to the oncoming traffic? I've just got a hunch the guy is a policeman though.

Either way we'll see if we hear anything or get any more details of the allegation. Thanks for the help so far!

This looks all pretty normal and by the book.

The process is this:

1. s172 Road Traffic Act notification to the registered keeper to find out who was driving. This included the notice of intended prosecution.
2. Either a conditional offer, such as a course or fixed penalty notice, or a court summons will be sent to the driver. Even with a conditional offer, you can elect to go to court regardless, in which case you'll receive a summons. If you elect for the out of court disposal, you're either get an invitation to a course, or your licence will be endorsed electronically after you pay the fine.
3. If you're summonsed or elect to go to court, you'll get an date to attend magistrates court.

It's worth noting that not every force has a diversionary programme for driving without due care and attention, indeed it's probably the minority of forces. So the next lowest out of court disposal will be a fixed penalty (3 points and 100 fine I believe).

I can't really comment on the facts of the case, it's just too subjective without seeing the footage and statement.

 

[Jokester]

Does the missus video show her turning into a side road where this person was jisticulating?....

Been several times recently where I’ve almost run over (today being one of them!) by someone ignoring the Highway Code on this.

 

[jpaul]

...but - you have to give way if a pedestrian is starting to cross a side road you enter ?
encounter this at least once a month, driver not paying attention, I'm typically running on pavement in bright clothing, I don't expect to adjust my pace , if they are turning across me, that is their obligation.

 

[Adam]

Nope it's not on a sideroad. The guy is standing about 25-50m past the turning and next to the entrance to a one way exit leading out of a park.

I've watched it numerous times and I can't make my mind up on the speed. Even if she was speeding, wouldn't that be a different offence (i.e. breaking the speed limit vs driving without due care and attention)? My research leads me to believe that careless driving covers a huge range of things such as being on the phone or being distracted, hitting someone/another car by making an error, running a read light, poor choices when overtaking etc. Speed seems to be an aggrevating factor for sentancing rather than the actual offence itself.

I've sent @Burnsy2023 the clip for his thoughts.

 

[jpaul]

if someones starting to cross, and a car at excess speed is suddenly bearing down on them .... did she brake ? that would be the natural instinct No.

edit: 25-50m past a bend(turning - now?) and parent+girl with scooter on pavement, looking like crossing, you'd be crawling

 

[Adam]

if someones starting to cross, and a car at excess speed is suddenly bearing down on them .... did she brake ? that would be the natural instinct No.

She did brake once he started gesturing while he was standing on the pavement. I’ve looked closely and not once did he step in the the road.

Like I said previously, even if her car was invisible and he wanted to cross within that period of time there are 2 cars coming the other way so it wouldn’t have been possible for him to have crossed the road without those cars stopping too.

 

[jpaul]

Yes ... but, ok, not that you really meant that, but, you couldn't make a police statement - I continued because cars coming the other way meant it wasn't safe for them to cross. ..
perhaps once a year, I encounter a vulnerable pedestrian, teetering, about to cross, who hasn't made eye contact, so you're obliged to stop..

 

[Lopéz]

They will need some kind of proof or reliable witnesses for it to stick if you appeal it (you should). If he decided to cross in a stupid spot then it's his fault.

It's a NIP, there's nothing to appeal yet unless this whole incident literally never happened.