Section 59

[Fett]

So did you ask if there was video?

There is definitely no video, that car is not fitted with any type of camera system. I would have pressed matters further at this stage if there was as a clip of the incident as it would put this to bed.

Personally I'd send a letter to the Chief Constable asking for a full explanation on which part of Section 3 of the RTA you had contravened and therefore given a Section 59.

The Chief Constable is Brunstrom. I'll let you decide if the ink used would be worth it.

In my letter..."Officer X indicated that the warning was for what could possibly have happened, i.e I could have alarmed another driver not expecting the overtake. Whilst I fully appreciate my judgement was not of a high standard and I exceeded the speed limit to perform the overtake, I have had time to review the section 59 warning and do not believe that the manoeuvre or my driving during the incident meets the criteria of careless or inconsiderate driving. I did ask Officer X twice during our conversation if the manoeuvre was safe and he stated that he believed it was. At no point during the manoeuvre did I inconvenience any other road user..."

But I have been inconsiderate in the eyes of one officer as it has been revealed he had to brake, thus inconveniencing him..."If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of an offence.”

I'm aware motoring law is different from criminal law but I always have a problem with this statement as surely in the absence of other evidence eg video/second policeman, then the old adage of "everyone being equal in the eyes of the law" should stand firm with your word that "you didn't" being just as good as his word that "you did" which in effect you'd think should cancel each others accusations out resulting in a case dismisal or does this not apply and if not WHY NOT?

I would be contesting a decision made by a trained traffic officer with x years experience. The onus would be on me to prove I was not inconsiderate, ultimately having to prove that he did not brake or have to brake....reasonable doubt and all that good stuff.

I found out that if a policeman offers me a warning I have to decline it and say if they want to take it further they have to do me for it. Apparently accepting a warning is accepting you did what they said you did and being a doctor this would automatically put me in front of the GMC for a fitness to practice hearing...So basically I would be forced to make them come steal my car if they wanted to give me an S59 because theyre having a bit of a shoddy day.

You can tell them to stick the S59 and if you are 100% confident that they have nothing on you, drive away. They will just send it to you by post. You have no choice in receiving or accepting a warning so it makes zero difference if you sign anything or not.

There is also no official appeals procedure for a S59. Trawling for info on the Section 59 after I recieved it was a bit of an eye-opener as it seems to be abused and there is confusion as to its application, even on police forums.

 

[Fett]

I'm a bit confused by this. Reading up on S.59 it can only be issued where the vehicle is likley to be causing distress AND is in contravention of either S.3 or S.34. As you were on a road and the officer confirmed that no S.3 offence was committed the S.59 shouldn't have been issued.

Plod in not understanding the laws shocker.

I may have got this wrong so please correct me but:

I overtook a police officer.
He considered it was an in inconsiderate manner.
This caused him inconvenience. Apparently.

So I have fulfilled both parts of what is required for a Section 59 in his eyes, depending on the interpretation of "distress". I think.

Bear in mind you will now get stopped all the time by any cop who has that ANPR equipment in their car.

As mentioned, since the warning I've been stopped twice. They were pleasant enough, if life is that lonely for them I don't mind spending a bit of time with them, I'm taking one for the community.

 

[Fett]

It could have simply annoyed him, rather than caused him inconvience.

Although I wonder if he would be classed as a MoP:

I don't doubt for a second it annoyed him personally, but I doubt he'll retract anything on the basis of it just being annoying rather than being inconvenienced. Would not know where to start to even try and prove the difference in this case.

 

[Fett]

Did he say he was the one distressed by your manoeuvre or the coach driver?

Neither. It was the possibility of causing distress or alarm. I could have caused distress if x, y and z were in place but no consideration seems to be given that the action would not have occurred under different circumstances.

I assume inconvenienced would require them to be directly affected by the incident; annoyed would not or would require tertiary actions.

I'm assuming the direct of action of his apparent braking is what is considered an inconvenience.

I'd never heard of it until now & it does seem pretty lame.

If applied properly, I would be all for it. I don't live in area where kids go haring across footpaths and public parks on scooters but I would imagine it's unpleasant for parents and the elderly. Same for the retards who drive like loons around town at 2am.

It seems to be abused though by an element of police, using it for minor motoring indiscretions and even then they are not sure of what they can or can't use it for.

Motorcyclists not charged with any criminal offence are being handed warning notices by police threatening to seize their bikes.
The warnings are issued under legislation designed to tackle anti-social behaviour. They state riders have broken traffic laws and warn their motorcycles will be impounded if caught again.
Motorcyclists say officers working for controversial police chief Richard Brunstrom are abusing the powers by handing the warnings to riders who have committed no offence.
MCN reader Richard Edwards, 52, from Telford, says he and a friend were both given warnings for no other reason than they were spotted riding near another motorcyclist who broke laws by crossing a solid white line to overtake.
Edwards said riders on the other side of the road were also being handed warnings, in what appeared to be a blanket action aimed at driving motorcyclists out of North Wales. The engineer, who has a clean licence, said: "As far as I'm concerned this is a 'stay out of North Wales' ticket."
The warnings state motorcyclists have ridden inconsiderately or carelessly in a way which either has or is likely to cause 'alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public'.
They go on: 'If you drive the vehicle in the same way on any other occasion, I can seize the vehicle under section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002.'
North Wales Police claimed in a statement: 'Where appropriate, North Wales Police have been utilising Section 59 of the Police Reform Act on all sections of the motoring public since it came into being and will continue to do so.
‘Section 59 is a stand-alone power and officers can use their discretion when dealing with motorists under this power. The warning does not require offenders to be reported for or dealt with separately for the careless driving element. However, neither does it prevent the police from pursuing a prosecution and issuing the S59 notice.’
The force admitted three out of four warnings issued on September 21 were to motorcyclists.

Police forums are the place to look if you can get past the atrocious spelling for other S59 blunders.

I'm not sure what % of the revenue the police take from the seizure fee, but it's interesting to see that the NW Police have base and stretch targets to meet and fulfill. Specifically in this instance, a 10% increase required in S59 warnings issued for 07/08, not sure about 08/09 figures.

 

[Fett]

The policemans new line that "he had to brake" surely doesn't make sense if you think about it, as if you overtook him then by my calculations that means your must be travelling faster than him and so when you pulled back in you'd still be moving away from him so why would he need to brake?

[unless you decided to brake test him ]

Insinuation being I left very little room and entered what he considered to be his safe braking zone.

 

[Fett]

Fett, have you been down carmarthen way recently?

I may or may not have. What have I done now?

 

[Fett]

what colour is your R35? lol... I drive a Red type R (new shape )

Gun metal grey.