Dangerous Driving or a normal safe overtaking manouvre?
robbie71
Hi Everyone - I am from Northern Ireland - not sure if that makes any
difference - and a few days ago was stopped and intervied by the
police...
Here is the full story...
At 12.55pm I was returning from hospital with my wife towards home.
I was behind a particularly slow moving small queue of traffic
(travelling at approx. 30-35mph) and remained behind it until I reached
a long straight stretch of road.
On seeing that nothing was coming in the opposite direction (the
straight of road was over half a mile long, straight and flat with a
hill at the end, half a mile away) and also that no one else was either
indicating or pulling out to overtake, I felt safe to overtake myself.
I proceeded to indicate, check my mirrors, and pull out into the right
hand lane to overtake. I sped up (always making sure to stay within
speed limits) and overtook a car, a small lorry and another car, all
the time watching the road ahead of me carefully to ensure nothing was
coming over the hill ahead.
After overtaking these vehicles (which took approximately 5-10
seconds), with the road ahead clear, I merged back into the traffic
When I rejoined the left lane, there were still a minimum of 250-300
metres until the hill ahead (about 15 seconds of driving), and there
was still no other oncoming traffic.
Also worth noting is that it was a clear, dry day and road conditions
were excellent.
About 10 minutes (and 5 miles) later, I was pulled in by the police (in
an unmarked car, which happened to be the first car I passed), where I
was asked to make a statement about what had happened.
This interview in itself made me very uncomfortable, particularly as
one of the policemen continually interrupted my answers with questions
which seemed designed to intimidate or entrap me - demanding yes or no
answers to questions which did not have yes or no answers and generally
being aggressive in manner etc.
I feel the overtaking manoeuvre, taken on a long, flat, wide, straight
road, with good visibility, without speeding, and where I rejoined the
traffic approx. 200metres before the brow of the hill carefully, was
not one which merited the subsequent action of the police. I did NOT
remain in the right hand lane for an excessive period, or until I was
very close to brow of the hill), and I feel, in this circumstance, the
act was not dangerous at all, either to myself or other road users.
After speaking to the police they followed me all the way back to
omagh, before then overtaking a large queue of traffic, themselves by
driving past over 10 vehicles via the hard shoulder and turning off a
side road...
I would also like to note - we were returning from a visit to the early
pregnancy unit in Hospital - we has just found out my wife was pregnant
with twins - our first children. I would certainly not have been
driving dangerously with such precious cargo in the car with me,
however, with my wife being very ill with extreme hypermeisis (an
extreme form of morning sickness) I did want to get home quickly.
I have a long record of trouble free driving, a clean license and am
always a very careful driver, with the only blemish on an otherwise
clean 15 year driving history being a small accident at a roundabout
almost 10 years ago.
The attached images show the road this happened on, and, on the second
image, a "reduce speed now" sign on the left hand side - by this point
I had already pulled back in and there was still no oncoming traffic.
However, the police seemed very keen to get me to say in my statement
that I admitted it was dangerous driving, which leads me to believe
they are going to try to charge me with dangerous dricing.
With twins on the way, and a wife who cannot drive, as well as a job
dependent on having a license, I am really worried as I have read that
a dangerous driving conviction carries an automatic driving ban in
Northern Ireland!
Do I need to get a lawyer, or will I wait until I get a letter saying
I'm to be prosecuted.
If I am - do I have a case to fight it, or should I just try to plead
down to a lesser charge and take the huge financial hit points on my
license will add?
Help!
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: DSC00252b.jpg |
|Download: http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=14|
|Filename: DSC00259b.jpg |
|Download: http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=15|
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
robbie71
numpty
IANAL and if you are going to defend this charge then emphatically,
*YES,* you do need a lawyer, even if you are going to plead guilty.
You have my sympathy. You are obviously not a determined law-breaker.
The police followed you for a considerable distance before pulling you
over. That could be taken as an indication that you were not some
dangerous lunatic, providing you can prove that the incident location
and the place in which you were stopped was separated by five miles.
One would imagine that unsafe driving would have caused the officers to
stop you as soon as practicable. If you can prove that there was a time
and distance gap, between your supposed offence and actually booking
you for it, I think it could assist a lawyer to defend the charge.
Just looking at your helpful images I am of the following opinion:
The road is clearly in a residential area with many hidden entrances.
It is possible that had you overtaken only one vehicle at any one
passing: look in mirrors, signal, move... then rinse and repeat for
each vehicle, then you probably would not have attracted the attention
of the police. Overtaking a complete line of slower moving vehicles
will make it appear as if you are careless to the consequences and also
in too much of a hurry because of the relative difference in speeds.
At any one of the hidden junctions with the road you were on, a person
could have been just leaving their home to turn in the opposite
direction to the one you were travelling (not expecting an overtaking
vehicle to be on their side of the road) and neither one of you would
have had anywhere to go but a head-on collision. It is the likely basis
for the police not liking your driving style.
Overtaking anywhere near that hill would have left you seriously
exposed, with little chance of escape, if a car coming over the hill at
great speed were suddenly to appear. Where you had taken that picture of
the hill and road sign from was, most probably, the last point at which
you should have been on the opposite side of the road, if you were to
be considered as driving safely.
There are two visible exits onto that road and one further up the hill
just past the sign on the left plus the white van on the right, which
you cannot be certain was parked rather than just about to pull out.
All of them constitute potential hazards and also you could not be
certain that a car would not suddenly appear from any driveway or over
the brow of the hill.
As for word against word, the police are more likely to win that
particular contest in court. Practically speaking , it is likely that
you could have been construed to have been driving in a manner that
would be considered to be dangerous, because all of the other vehicles,
police car included, were travelling more slowly than you.
The speed limit is just that... a limit on the maximum speed you may
travel at. It is not a target that must be achieved to show that you
are safe. Regarding the driving standards of the police who stopped
you... good luck with that complaint. I don't think it will be viewed
as anything other than sour grapes initiated after you were stopped.
The rule is that two wrongs will never make a right. As to your
discomfiture at being interviewed by the police, nobody would expect
the normally law-abiding citizen to be comfortable with being stopped
for breaking some law, however inadvertent the act.
Sorry to be so cheerful but I would say that you will probably have to
suck it up and have a lawyer plead mitigation such as your concern for
the health of your rather sick wife, thus clouding your judgement, for
which you are deeply sorry &c. I am a little surprised that the police
did not choose to just have a 'friendly chat' with you and let you go
on your way, especially given the circumstances which you have
described.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
numpty
steve robinson
There appears to be either driveways or small sideroads entering the road you were
travelling on , it also has long lane markings which indidicate possible hazards
You need a lawyer if you intend pleading NG
Don Aitken
<robbie71...@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Hi Everyone - I am from Northern Ireland - not sure if that makes any
>difference - and a few days ago was stopped and intervied by the
>police...
>
>Here is the full story...
>
[snip]
>Do I need to get a lawyer, or will I wait until I get a letter saying
>I'm to be prosecuted.
>
>If I am - do I have a case to fight it, or should I just try to plead
>down to a lesser charge and take the huge financial hit points on my
>license will add?
>
You should certainly do nothing unless/until you get a Notice of
Intended Prosecution (which must be sent within 14 days, unless you
were actually told that you might be prosecuted; hints don't count).
My guess would be that you will hear no more; they wouldn't have put
the effort into getting an admission out of you if they didn't realise
that they had a thin case without one.
If you get the NIP, that will be the time to think about seeing a
lawyer (which I agree you will probably need).
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Periander
news:numpty....@legalbanter.co.uk:
> The police followed you for a considerable distance before pulling you
> over. That could be taken as an indication that you were not some
> dangerous lunatic
Alternatively as the police car was teh first car overtaken it could be
read that that police vehicle had to wait a considerable period before they
could overtake the two leading vehicles in a safe manner to catch you up.
Other than that I agree with what you say, I also agree with Don, it's
unlikely that any prosecution would follow. To be frank nowadays with the
cps controlling access to the courts a prosecution for dangerous/careless
driving usually falls into the "not worth the effort" catagory unless there
are specific circumstances.
--
Regards,
Periander
Wm...
uk.legal.moderated robbie71 <robbie71...@legalbanter.co.uk>
>After overtaking these vehicles (which took approximately 5-10
>seconds), with the road ahead clear, I merged back into the traffic
>
>When I rejoined the left lane, there were still a minimum of 250-300
>metres until the hill ahead (about 15 seconds of driving), and there
>was still no other oncoming traffic.
I am uncomfortable with your times, you say a few seconds here and a few
seconds there. I'm not buying it, sorry.
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>|Filename: DSC00252b.jpg |
>|Download: http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=14|
>|Filename: DSC00259b.jpg |
>|Download: http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=15|
>+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
this uk.legal.moderated not legalbanter
we don't get to see your pics.
--
Wm...
Reply-To: address valid for at least 7 days
tonyjeffs
Your description suggests youtravelled 160m in the right hand lane; a
long way. Things can change a lot in those10-15 seconds.
Was your return route to the left visible and available from the
outset, or did you have to rely on someone to let you in?
If I was one of the drivers you overtook, I'd be annoyed that you did
that monouvre, jumping the queue, - while I was being too polite.
In your situation, I'd be very annoyed with the police for trying to
railroad me into making a 'guilty' statement while under stress, and
would want that mentioned in court if it gets there.
Tony
Usenet Nutter
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>>|Filename: DSC00252b.jpg |
>>|Download: http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=14|
>>|Filename: DSC00259b.jpg |
>>|Download: http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/attachment.php?attachmentid=15|
>>+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>this uk.legal.moderated not legalbanter
>
>we don't get to see your pics.
You do if you click the links !!!
Wm...
uk.legal.moderated Wm... <tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
maybe someone (perhaps even the OP) can do some sums.
if a vehicle is travelling at (say) 30mph and it takes someone else 5 to
10 seconds to overtake them how fast was the overtaking vehicle
travelling?
etc.
I think we are talking about non-trivial speed unless my sums are way
out or the OP isn't being entirely honest.
Dr Zoidberg
news:robbie71...@legalbanter.co.uk...
> However, the police seemed very keen to get me to say in my statement
> that I admitted it was dangerous driving, which leads me to believe
> they are going to try to charge me with dangerous dricing.
>
> With twins on the way, and a wife who cannot drive, as well as a job
> dependent on having a license, I am really worried as I have read that
> a dangerous driving conviction carries an automatic driving ban in
> Northern Ireland!
>
> Do I need to get a lawyer, or will I wait until I get a letter saying
> I'm to be prosecuted.
If your driving was as you say then it doesn't seem an unreasonable
overtake.
What did they actually say at the end of speaking to you?
If they were intending on taking you to court they should have siad "You
will be reported for consideration of the question of prosecuting you for
this offence" or something very similar.
Was anything like this mentioned?
--
Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"
Monty L
news:r2dqb5tqe8v9fh8bf...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:25:11 +0100, robbie71
> <robbie71...@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>Hi Everyone - I am from Northern Ireland - not sure if that makes any
>>difference - and a few days ago was stopped and intervied by the
>>police...
>>
>>Here is the full story...
>>
> [snip]
>
>>Do I need to get a lawyer, or will I wait until I get a letter saying
>>I'm to be prosecuted.
>>
>>If I am - do I have a case to fight it, or should I just try to plead
>>down to a lesser charge and take the huge financial hit points on my
>>license will add?
>>
> You should certainly do nothing unless/until you get a Notice of
> Intended Prosecution (which must be sent within 14 days, unless you
> were actually told that you might be prosecuted; hints don't count).
>
> My guess would be that you will hear no more; they wouldn't have put
> the effort into getting an admission out of you if they didn't realise
> that they had a thin case without one.
Would the OP not have been better off by invoking his "right to silence"
during the interview?
numpty
robbie71;687135 Wrote:
> Thanks for that numpty.
>
> Do you know what the likelyhood is that the case will be prosecuted
> (ie, is there any chance it will not?)
>
> Additionally, do you know what a typical judgement would be in such a
> case, and is it possible, for example, to get a solicitor to say I
> would accept a fine and even some points on my license if pleading
> guilty to a lesser charge (for example, driving without due care)?
Unfortunately, I have no idea of the likelihood of a prosecution. The
police will report you for the offence and a decision will be made as
to the chance of a successful prosecution. At that point, it wont be
personal... it is more to do with the authorities following a process
to its natural conclusion.
I am not a lawyer. I suspect that an advocate will have no part in
offering potential acceptable penalties to the court. At the best, I
would expect a legal representative to venture to assist the
magistrate(s) or judge, only by way of the most circumspect and oblique
reminder if it appears, to your lawyer, that an important (less severe
but more appropriate?) penalty option may not have been considered. I
cannot imagine that the judiciary would be delighted to be told (or
reminded) how to carry out their work, by a member of the bar or a
solicitor, who will always be subordinates.
It will be for your representative to show that although the offence
was committed by you, it was a one-off event that was mitigated because
of your personal distress and that you are now fully aware of your
mistake and will never do it again. Then an apology to the court... at
the point where you will be asked if you have you anything to say
before the sentence is passed and at that point you will be
well-advised to show contrition, rather than arguing about the
unfairness of it all.
At best, if the police make a strong case, your representative will be
engaged in mitigating the offence and trying to reduce its impact. You
can probably hope for a fine and some points on your licence but be
realistic. A lawyer would be the best person to advise you about when
to mention your personal circumstances and the importance of being able
to drive.
Do bear in mind that the law is supposed to be applied without being
affected by special personal circumstances so relying on them for some
sort of tempering of a potential penalty that is either mandated in the
legislation or is being considered, may not yield the desired result.
The stress of waiting and wondering how things will go is obviously
difficult to cope with and it appears to attend many court hearings,
even the civil ones.
I am not aware of any differences in laws between Northern Ireland and
England, Wales and Scotland. Nevertheless, there may well be some
significant differences because Northern Ireland has its own criminal
justice system. You may find these web pages helpful...
http://www.motoring.marymonson.co.uk/Careless-Driving.php
http://www.motoring.marymonson.co.uk/dangerous-driving.php
As far as I can tell, you ought to be able to get some sort of legal
aid funding for your defence and your motor insurance policy may cover
that possibility as well.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
numpty
Sleepalot
30 mph is about 15 yards/second so if we have two cars, A and B,
where A is at 30 mph and B is at 60 mph, the distance they travel is;
Time(s) A(yrds) B(yrds) diff(yrds)
1..............15...........30.........15
2..............30...........60.........30
3..............45...........90.........45
4..............60..........120........60
5..............75..........150........75
6..............90..........180........90
But "car" A is a queue of three vehicles (say 4 yards each) with 1-2s spacing
(say 1.5s = 22.5 yards).
Also you need to allow for the length and spacing of car B. So the total length
of that lot is (4x4 (vehicles)) + (4x 22.5 (space)) = 106 yards = L.
Time(s) A(yrds) B(yrds) diff(yrds) -L
6..............90..........180........90........crash
7.............105..........210 ......105.......close
8.............120..........240.......120.........14
9.............135..........270.......135.........29
10............150.........300.......150..........44
It seems possible to me - if they were that slow, and too close, and he
didn't hang about.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Wm...
uk.legal.moderated Usenet Nutter <indivi...@takeoutmyteethgmail.com>
One of them shows what looks like a blind rise. i.e. it wouldn't be
sensible to be on the wrong side of the road because you'd have no way
of seeing oncoming traffic.
Don Aitken
<mlowt...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>"Don Aitken" <don-a...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
>news:r2dqb5tqe8v9fh8bf...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 21:25:11 , robbie71
>> <robbie71...@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Hi Everyone - I am from Northern Ireland - not sure if that makes any
>>>difference - and a few days ago was stopped and intervied by the
>>>police...
>>>
>>>Here is the full story...
>>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>>Do I need to get a lawyer, or will I wait until I get a letter saying
>>>I'm to be prosecuted.
>>>
>>>If I am - do I have a case to fight it, or should I just try to plead
>>>down to a lesser charge and take the huge financial hit points on my
>>>license will add?
>>>
>> You should certainly do nothing unless/until you get a Notice of
>> Intended Prosecution (which must be sent within 14 days, unless you
>> were actually told that you might be prosecuted; hints don't count).
>>
>> My guess would be that you will hear no more; they wouldn't have put
>> the effort into getting an admission out of you if they didn't realise
>> that they had a thin case without one.
>
>Would the OP not have been better off by invoking his "right to silence"
>during the interview?
>
Possibly, although he doesn't seem to have done himself any harm. Even
if he had admitted something, this kind of informal "confession" is
pretty worthless; they would have had to take him to a police station
for a proper recorded intereview under caution.
GP Hardy
> You should certainly do nothing unless/until you get a Notice of
> Intended Prosecution (which must be sent within 14 days, unless you
> were actually told that you might be prosecuted; hints don't count).
Don't they have to say "We intend to prosecute" rather than "We might
prosecute"?
Either way, what are the time limitations for this? When can you assume they
decided not to bother after all, after receiving such a verbal indication?
robbie71
numpty;687334 Wrote:
> Of course. My empathy was with the hapless OP and I had assumed that the
> police would have been able to find a suitable stopping point within
> five miles, aided by the use of their lights and sirens. The road looks
> unlikely to suffer much with congestion. ;)
The road was a bit busier than that at the time, and, aside from that
straight, is quite a bendy road - so, to be fair, it may have been the
first time they could get me - however, it WAS also 5 miles, and they
WERE in a police car with lights and a siren, so certainly could have
caught up quicker if they really wanted to as well!
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
robbie71
numpty
Monty L;687431 Wrote:
>
> -
> Would the OP not have been better off by invoking his "right to
> silence"
If you are innocent, isn't it likely to beg the question as to why you
would want to keep silent about your innocence? I think it is implicit
in the wording of the standard caution, which contains the veiled
threat... “You do not have to say anything. But
*_-it_may_harm_your_defence-_* if you do not mention
-*_when_questioned_-* something which you later rely on in court.
Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”
The old caution was clearly more reasonable... -“You do not have
to say anything but anything you do say will be taken down and may be
given in evidence.”-
If you compare the present UK caution to the one which an American
citizen who is about to be arrested, detained, questioned or charged,
will have read to them...
*"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be
used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney
present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will
be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights?"*
...it may be seen that the current form of words which the police use
in the UK, is a not so subtle effort to intimidate the subject under
caution.
In the OP's position, I would have offered to discuss the issue, with
the proviso that I was permitted to record the conversation, using my
mobile phone video camera, complete with the numbers of the officers
concerned. In the alternative, I would be prepared to accept being
interviewed in the presence of a lawyer. It would show (to a court and
jury at a later date) that I had displayed the requisite willingness to
be interviewed so that nothing sinister could be inferred from the right
to silence, if I had chosen to exercise it.
Of course, hindsight is always perfect vision. :)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
numpty
Periander
news:robbie71...@legalbanter.co.uk:
>
> numpty;687334 Wrote:
>> Of course. My empathy was with the hapless OP and I had assumed that the
>> police would have been able to find a suitable stopping point within
>> five miles, aided by the use of their lights and sirens. The road looks
>> unlikely to suffer much with congestion. ;)
>
> The road was a bit busier than that at the time, and, aside from that
> straight, is quite a bendy road - so, to be fair, it may have been the
> first time they could get me - however, it WAS also 5 miles, and they
> WERE in a police car with lights and a siren, so certainly could have
> caught up quicker if they really wanted to as well!
Blues and twos don't entitle an emergency driver to drive dangerously
(granted when the red mist comes down some forget this little snippet).
--
Regards,
Periander
Alex Heney
<gareth...@ntlwrold.com> wrote:
>"Don Aitken" wrote...
>
>> You should certainly do nothing unless/until you get a Notice of
>> Intended Prosecution (which must be sent within 14 days, unless you
>> were actually told that you might be prosecuted; hints don't count).
>
>Don't they have to say "We intend to prosecute" rather than "We might
>prosecute"?
>
No.
They have to warn you explicitly that you are being reported for
possible prosecution, but the policeman at the side of the road does
not know for sure whether any prosecution will occur or not, so he
can't say more than that.
>Either way, what are the time limitations for this? When can you assume they
>decided not to bother after all, after receiving such a verbal indication?
6 months.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
<tcn...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
We do if we open the links in a browser.
robbie71
'GP Hardy[_2_ Wrote:
> ;687529']"Don Aitken" wrote...
> Either way, what are the time limitations for this? When can you assume
> they
> decided not to bother after all, after receiving such a verbal
> indication?
Good point - I'd rather know quicker than have it hanging over my head
for months.
though i do think there is a 6 month limit IF you have been told they
intend to prosecute at the time (which, let's face it, they're going to
say they did anyway, whether they did or not)
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
robbie71
Christopher Bowlas
wrote:
> Hi Everyone - I am from Northern Ireland - not sure if that makes any
> difference - and a few days ago was stopped and intervied by the
> police...
I am not a lawyer, but I am somewhat disquieted by your account of how
you were "interviewed".
I cannot say if you will be prosecuted at all or for what offence, but
it seems to me that if the policemen were at all serious, they would
also have taken a breath sample and possibly have arrested you there
and then. Instead, they conducted a roadside "interview" (which may or
may not have been completely legal) and then, having told you to go on
your way, followed you for some considerable distance, perhaps hoping
to get evidence of some other driving infraction.
I do not believe that one needs to be a cynic to wonder if the actions
of those policemen were prompted mainly by their egos having been
slightly bruised when they saw a member of the public overtake the
lorry and the car in front of them.
If they do prosecute, perhaps you should contact Freeman & Co?
robbie71
Christopher Bowlas;687759 Wrote:
>
>
> I am not a lawyer, but I am somewhat disquieted by your account of how
> you were "interviewed".
>
> I cannot say if you will be prosecuted at all or for what offence, but
> it seems to me that if the policemen were at all serious, they would
> also have taken a breath sample and possibly have arrested you there
> and then. Instead, they conducted a roadside "interview" (which may or
> may not have been completely legal) and then, having told you to go on
> your way, followed you for some considerable distance, perhaps hoping
> to get evidence of some other driving infraction.
>
> I do not believe that one needs to be a cynic to wonder if the actions
> of those policemen were prompted mainly by their egos having been
> slightly bruised when they saw a member of the public overtake the
> lorry and the car in front of them.
>
Those thoughts all did cross my mind, I must admit. It was strange not
to be breathylised, offered a lawyer for the "interview" etc...
And it is quite possible they were annoyed I overtook them while they
were stuck behind the traffic, and wouldn't have looked on it the same
if, for example, they were 10 cars back or 5 cars ahead in the same
queue of traffic. I'm still sure I had plenty of space before the brow
of the hill to pull in to the traffic, but it may have appeared from
their view (several vehicles back and behind a lorry), and with the
foreshortening from a distance, that I had less space from where they
were looking...
???
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
robbie71
robbie71
'Nick[_9_ Wrote:
> ;689064']robbie71 wrote:
> -
> About 10 minutes (and 5 miles) later, I was pulled in by the police
> (in
> an unmarked car, which happened to be the first car I passed), where
> I
> was asked to make a statement about what had happened.
>
> This interview in itself made me very uncomfortable, particularly as
> one of the policemen continually interrupted my answers with
> questions
> which seemed designed to intimidate or entrap me - demanding yes or
> no
> answers to questions which did not have yes or no answers and
> generally
> being aggressive in manner etc.
>
> This was a verbal statement? Almost like a chat? A chat where they
> asked
> you to consider the safety of your own driving and possibly recognise
> for yourself that you could have handled the situation differently?
Yes and no - one of the policemen asked me to go to their car for a
chat, but it was a chat which quickly turned into the second one
harunging me to answer the questions the way he wanted me to answer
them, not the way I wanted to.
Notes were also taken, which I had to check and sign.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
--
robbie71