Police fail to arrest driver of rolled car

[Bonefishblues]

May be the police had not seen that video when they attended. If they had they would probably of arrested the driver for driving like a plank. As it was they may have assumed it had just fallen over, unusually parked. Police have funny ideas sometimes.

They often seem to arrest then release under investigation, HGV drivers when they are involved in accidents - why do they do that?

The earlier update said that subsequent to the incident they had recovered CCTV footage - which has obviously been released.

[531colin]

Bloody ridiculous.

If you are driving and you are just a bit over the alcohol limit, you spend the night in the cell, because the police can’t release you until you are “sober”

Drive 2 tons of metal killing machine too fast on the wrong side of the road straight over a pedestrian crossing hit the kerb going fast enough to roll the thing, and just saunter off into the sunset.

The law is an ass.

This sort of debacle just fosters the attitude “it’s just an accident, it could happen to anybody “
Which results in people driving into vulnerable road users because the sun was in their eyes, and they can’t be bothered to slow down.
It isn’t an accident, it results from the drivers failure to drive appropriately according to the road conditions.

[Mike Sales]

Bloody ridiculous.

If you are driving and you are just a bit over the alcohol limit, you spend the night in the cell, because the police can’t release you until you are “sober”

Drive 2 tons of metal killing machine too fast on the wrong side of the road straight over a pedestrian crossing hit the kerb going fast enough to roll the thing, and just saunter off into the sunset.

The law is an ass.

This sort of debacle just fosters the attitude “it’s just an accident, it could happen to anybody “
Which results in people driving into vulnerable road users because the sun was in their eyes, and they can’t be bothered to slow down.
It isn’t an accident, it results from the drivers failure to drive appropriately according to the road conditions.

I quite agree, 80% of killer drivers are sober, but it is a simple matter to prove that the machine says that you have too much alcohol in your blood, but to show that someone was driving dangerously is more tricky.
A search shows that my memory is faulty, certainly as regards rtcs in total.

Number of drink-drive collisions in 2021 The total number of drink-drive collisions of all severities represents an increase of 1% from 2020 to 2021 to 4,660. This means that around 5% of all reported road traffic collisions in 2021 involved at least one driver or rider over the legal alcohol limit.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... evels-2021

[531colin]

Self-evident in this case, I think

[Mike Sales]

Self-evident in this case, I think

You would think so, but 'sun in the eyes' etc. too often go unpunished.

[Pebble]

Bloody ridiculous.

If you are driving and you are just a bit over the alcohol limit, you spend the night in the cell, because the police can’t release you until you are “sober”

Drive 2 tons of metal killing machine too fast on the wrong side of the road straight over a pedestrian crossing hit the kerb going fast enough to roll the thing, and just saunter off into the sunset.

The law is an ass.

This sort of debacle just fosters the attitude “it’s just an accident, it could happen to anybody “
Which results in people driving into vulnerable road users because the sun was in their eyes, and they can’t be bothered to slow down.
It isn’t an accident, it results from the drivers failure to drive appropriately according to the road conditions.

The attitude is very strange - a few years ago a lorry crashed into the back of my van as I was slowing down for a police officer who was closing the road due to a serious accident ahead. Whilst we were waiting for an ambulance to take me to hospital the lorry driver (who was a really nice bloke and provided tea and biscuits for the long wait) asked the police officer if he would be charged. The police officer laughed and said "No - anyone could crash on a morning like this" (there was a lot of black ice)

Now I knew the road was slippy and was driving accordingly and was able to stop for the police officer without skidding - the lorry driver clearly was not concentrating, due care? But clearly the police officer thought it entirely reasonable to crash.. (and write my van off)

[531colin]

Yes, it’s an “accident “ nobody’s fault, could happen to anybody……that is anybody who isn’t driving according to the conditions

….,.oh, wait a minute, that’s what we are supposed to do

[Bonefishblues]

Has it now been established that the driver was over the limit?

[thirdcrank]

531colin

I've read what you have to say with interest but I'm unclear the sources of some of your comments. eg Detention after a positive breath test is authorised under section 10 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and your account of that is factually wrong.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/10

Your account of the crash under discussion contains some info which must be from another unlinked source.

"Drivers with sun in their eyes" presumably comes from cases which have gone to trial and this defence has been accepted by a jury. ie The driver was prosecuted but acquitted by a jury. There has, of course, been plenty about this on here before.

[PH]

I don't get the clamour for an arrest. I want the matter quickly investigated and the driver appropriately charged, how does an arrest help achieve that? As thirdcrank has said, the police can't arrest people to send come sort of signal about the seriousness, that isn't how it's intended to happen and neither would I want it to be.
If anyone is in any doubt about the purpose, and the police powers, of arrest, this is a decent guide:
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/a ... -arrest-2/

[thirdcrank]

I don't get the clamour for an arrest. I want the matter quickly investigated and the driver appropriately charged, how does an arrest help achieve that? As thirdcrank has said, the police can't arrest people to send come sort of signal about the seriousness, that isn't how it's intended to happen and neither would I want it to be.
If anyone is in any doubt about the purpose, and the police powers, of arrest, this is a decent guide:
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/a ... -arrest-2/

What I've been trying to explain is here

IS AN ARREST NECESSARY?

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/a ... -section-7

I'll flatter myself that it's pretty much what I've been saying

[Mike Sales]

I don't get the clamour for an arrest. I want the matter quickly investigated and the driver appropriately charged, how does an arrest help achieve that? As thirdcrank has said, the police can't arrest people to send come sort of signal about the seriousness, that isn't how it's intended to happen and neither would I want it to be.
If anyone is in any doubt about the purpose, and the police powers, of arrest, this is a decent guide:
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/a ... -arrest-2/

What I've been trying to explain is here

IS AN ARREST NECESSARY?

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/a ... -section-7

I'll flatter myself that it's pretty much what I've been saying

I'm not fussed whether drivers who cause an accident are arrested on the spot. As we often complain here, far too many drivers who kill or maim get away with derisory or no punishment. That is what matters.
On TV I often hear policemen saying that drunk drivers are one of their chief hates, yet most of the drivers who hit things or people are not over the limit. We surely need to stop excusing drivers for dangerous mistakes, just because they pass the breathalyser. That is 95% of drivers in collisions. Why cannot we give the 95% more attention? That is the scandal.

[531colin]

My “information “ on the rolled over four wheel drive comes from watching the video, that’s all.

I’m not interested in becoming an authority on arrest protocol, I just want to see road traffic “accidents “ treated as what they are….avoidable consequences of drivers not concentrating and being unconcerned if they kill and maim innocent road users, or pavement users.

[thirdcrank]

I see footage of this crash has now made it onto the BBC News www

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-englan ... m-67762440

[thirdcrank]

I don't get the clamour for an arrest. I want the matter quickly investigated and the driver appropriately charged, how does an arrest help achieve that? As thirdcrank has said, the police can't arrest people to send come sort of signal about the seriousness, that isn't how it's intended to happen and neither would I want it to be.
If anyone is in any doubt about the purpose, and the police powers, of arrest, this is a decent guide:
https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/a ... -arrest-2/

What I've been trying to explain is here

IS AN ARREST NECESSARY?

https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/a ... -section-7

I'll flatter myself that it's pretty much what I've been saying

I'm not fussed whether drivers who cause an accident are arrested on the spot. As we often complain here, far too many drivers who kill or maim get away with derisory or no punishment. That is what matters.
On TV I often hear policemen saying that drunk drivers are one of their chief hates, yet most of the drivers who hit things or people are not over the limit. We surely need to stop excusing drivers for dangerous mistakes, just because they pass the breathalyser. That is 95% of drivers in collisions. Why cannot we give the 95% more attention? That is the scandal.

Yes - one of my hobby horses from the early days of the forum and before even that. Those were the days, my friend ....