After 8 months a case has collapsed against a driver who allegedly splashed a PCSO

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-21713000

http://www.hertfordshiremercury.co.uk/Hert...103854.htm

The biggest problem appears to be a witness statement that matched the officers account including spelling mistakes

I have the greatest respect for the British Police and think they have a terrible job but this is farcical when you see the scum that get away with it every day  Wanted a Series 2 LR since childhood but previously owned MY16 Disco Sport HSE TD4 Auto, MY13 RR Sport Black Edition TDV6 Auto, MY10 RR Sport HSE TDV6 Auto, 2007 Freelander 1 Freestyle TD4 Soft Top, 2009 Freelander 2 GS TD4 Auto, 2007 Freelander 2 GS TD4, 2004 Disco 2 Metropolis Auto, 2002 Disco 2 GS, 2000 Freelander 1 SE TD4 SW

Still hoping for a S2 one day!

Deliberately splashing a police officer... surely not

Fair play to him for sticking up for himself when he felt someone had influenced the witness RRS gone
Audi SQ5...Gone Audi Q7 S-Line 240 3.0TDI Gone
Audi A6 Allroad Sport 270 3.0TDI

Be warned: splashing a pedestrian is considered to be driving without consideration and can potentially get you points. The fact that the rozzers messed up in this case is the annoying thing, not that he was charged with splashing someone.

from: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_tr...d_driving/

Quote:

Driving without reasonable consideration - Section 3 RTA 1988
The Law
The definition of this offence is set out in section 3ZA of the Road Safety Act 2006. A driver can be guilty of driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving (section 3ZA (3)).The penalties are the same as for driving without due care and attention.

Generally, prosecutors prefer 'Careless Driving"' to "Driving without due consideration" as the former is easier to prove - there is no need to show that an actual road user is inconvenienced, etc. But 'due consideration' is more appropriate where the real harm done is aimed at, or suffered by a particular person.

Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced.

This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness. There must, however, also be some inconvenience to other road users, for example, forcing other drivers to move over and/or brake as a consequence. The following examples are typical of what we are likely to regard as inconsiderate driving:

flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way; misuse of any lane to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers; unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane; unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause; driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers; driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed; and driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers. Note that you must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the Magistrates/Youth court (R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340).

Public interest considerations
The public interest considerations for this offence are largely the same. You may be more inclined to prosecute where you have decided that due consideration is the appropriate charge and you will be calling evidence to show that the defendant caused harm, annoyance or distress (e.g. the example regarding the pedestrians and the puddle - see above).

Round the corner from me is a gulley that has been blocked for years - when it rains a massive puddle is formed that I walk past with my dogs

I now wear full waterproofs to avoid everyone driving through it soaking me and the dogs - in future i will ring the police and ask them to prosecute every motorist who soaks me

Ummhhh - somehow I don't think they will want to know  Wanted a Series 2 LR since childhood but previously owned MY16 Disco Sport HSE TD4 Auto, MY13 RR Sport Black Edition TDV6 Auto, MY10 RR Sport HSE TDV6 Auto, 2007 Freelander 1 Freestyle TD4 Soft Top, 2009 Freelander 2 GS TD4 Auto, 2007 Freelander 2 GS TD4, 2004 Disco 2 Metropolis Auto, 2002 Disco 2 GS, 2000 Freelander 1 SE TD4 SW

Still hoping for a S2 one day!

Criminalising society is what is wrong with this country - ive know intentionally splashing someone is illegal (if you cant avoid a puddle it isnt BTW) but why should we criminalise swathes of society for silly little things

There are too many laws in this country and many of them are waste of time, but i dont see anyone offering a review of them Mike

2014 Facelift Discovery

muddywheels wrote:

Ummhhh - somehow I don't think they will want to know

mse wrote:

Criminalising society is what is wrong with this country - ive know intentionally splashing someone is illegal (if you cant avoid a puddle it isnt BTW) but why should we criminalise swathes of society for silly little things

There are too many laws in this country and many of them are waste of time, but i dont see anyone offering a review of them

I'm not sure that's entirely true the mix of laws has primarily been developed through thing like the nanny state and a selection of different people with loud voices who have self interests etc

As for the analogy of the car v dry cleaning...again it doesn't work for me. Scratching a car in a car park and either arranging to pay, or leaving insurance companies to pay etc... Doesn't criminalise people...there are more examples, equally there is a scale thing here...perspective is important it's just some damp clothes no actual harm done. Mike

2014 Facelift Discovery

Yes, the nanny state laws and "loudest shouter" laws are introduced because they have to have a law to prevent you doing that which they want you to stop doing. Bear in mind, however, that a lot of the nanny state stuff we hear about isn't enshrined in law - it's the result of insurance companies refusing to offer public liability insurance unless the risks they see are removed. Hence the "no playing conkers" stuff because the schools' insurers won't pay out. So blame financial institutions (again), not law makers.

If you stop and offer to pay for the dry cleaning having splashed a pedestrian then no harm done, as you say. Everyone's a bit annoyed but you've done the right thing in offering compensation. The law wouldn't then be interested.

Taking your point one step on, if I dent your car and drive off it's ok? After all, it's only metalwork - no actual harm done.

As you say - perspective is required. And an issue is always more serious from the persepctive of the person who has been "harmed" whether it is damp clothes or bent bodywork.

If everyone had the decency to stop and offer to sort out their little errors of judgement then we certainly wouldn't need all of these laws. But people don't, so we end up with the laws.

SWMBO came back to her car a few years ago to find a note. "Sorry, I hit your car and broke the rear light. Please ring me". A phone call later, the driver agreed to pay for the light. So we went and found a suitable second hand unit. The driver was insistent that she pay for a new one. Why? The car was quite old and the second hand unit was perfectly serviceable so a new unit at 3x the price would have been silly. She was very happy and sent the cash over. Everyone happy, no one greatly put out. That's how to behave. If we all did that the world would be a better place. But it isn't. 2012 SDV6 - it's missing a couple of cylinders
2008 TDV8 - it was a labour of love and is much missed

The nanny state laws are the laws i was thinking - i hadnt considered the stupid H&S type rules/insurances because we increasingly feel a need to have an american type system

Labour were bad at making criminals out of everyone to solve a handful of issues - or create a law where actually one more sensible and fair one applied. Equally guidance to ensure more simple matters became legalised more quickly.

I can think of many examples - there are loads, for example, with us motorists. as an example; we had a car tax renewal reminder this morning, reminding that if we (as we have had to for a couple of years) must have tax and insurance and couldnt retain insurance without tax. Now the point of un tax/un insured drivers is not what this law affects - but as an example you have a car, you want to store for the winter/use during the winter or restore. What many people would do is leave their 12 month insurance and have 6 months tax - storing the car for the other 6...this rule now seeks to fine people, not for doing something wrong - but out of a principle they almost cant be trusted.

Im a firm believer that the majority of this stuff is because people are idiots, want their own £ out of whatever, that we have lost the ability to turn the other cheek and move on and there is a general common sense failing.

You mention harmed...We really over-egg harmed, stabbed, disfigured, killed etc is harming - being wet isnt!

As another example, Look at wales and some of their new silly laws and rules...plastic bags are one...dogs are another...

There are many countries that are far more liberal and free than the UK and that the UK is quickly becoming - its a shame... Mike

2014 Facelift Discovery

RRSTDV8 wrote:

.....

SWMBO came back to her car a few years ago to find a note. "Sorry, I hit your car and broke the rear light. Please ring me". A phone call later, the driver agreed to pay for the light. So we went and found a suitable second hand unit. The driver was insistent that she pay for a new one. Why? The car was quite old and the second hand unit was perfectly serviceable so a new unit at 3x the price would have been silly. She was very happy and sent the cash over. Everyone happy, no one greatly put out. That's how to behave. If we all did that the world would be a better place. But it isn't.

I wish I had your luck

I am still trying to get a claim sorted since Sep 2012 - woman reversed into me in station car park, admitted her fault but did not have insurance details on her

Advised my insurer and contacted northern rail for CCTV just in case - never got her insurance details or CCTV despite ringing weekly to chase and sending forms/payment as requested, woman denied reversing into me after a month, passenger focus watchdog found northern rail had failed me but could not help and police were not interested without cctv

My insurer suggested 50/50 but told them I want my day in court and still waiting

Until this is resolved I can't insure car for my son and will lose no claim discount  Wanted a Series 2 LR since childhood but previously owned MY16 Disco Sport HSE TD4 Auto, MY13 RR Sport Black Edition TDV6 Auto, MY10 RR Sport HSE TDV6 Auto, 2007 Freelander 1 Freestyle TD4 Soft Top, 2009 Freelander 2 GS TD4 Auto, 2007 Freelander 2 GS TD4, 2004 Disco 2 Metropolis Auto, 2002 Disco 2 GS, 2000 Freelander 1 SE TD4 SW

Still hoping for a S2 one day!