gaz wrote:Well I know you've emphasised the need to issue a NIP within 14 days of an alleged driving offence and also added that failure to issue a NIP can be used by the defence as a tactic to get a charge dismissed. So I expect a court would be quite likely to see a charge for wanton and furious driving as an abuse of process, if it were directed at the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle.
Right area, but not what I was getting at.
This charge could never be used to get round the need for an NIP since it can only apply when there has been an "accident" within the meaning of that part of the Road Traffic Offenders Act which creates the requirement to serve an NIP, and provides an exception when there has been one.
Mistik-Ka
Whatever the grammar, in English law a mechanically propelled vehicle is what used to be termed a "motor vehicle" before the term was dropped because it had acquired too much baggage in the form of case law, restricting its meaning. Prior to that "mechanically propelled vehicle" was used in the vehicle licensing regulations. A pedal cycle is both a vehicle and a carriage. That bit of the advice is prompted by the fact that although there are offences of careless, inconsiderate and dangerous cycling which are equivalent to the motoring versions, there is no offence of causing death/ serious injury by cycling.
The main thing here about furious driving was that it was intended to deal with people who intentionally whipped-up their horses to go at speed, rather than people whose horse bolted.