Without due care and attention please help asap.

[carl573]

Hi all please help. Me and my partner were driving down a quite country lane with our son on a lovely sunday morning in June. We got stuck behind a car driving at about 35-40 mph in an national speed limit zone. We followed him for 3 miles. We abided by the road markings and did not overtake untill it was permited ie broken white lines. We overtook him when there was a stretch of road 322 metres long and no oncoming traffic. When we were just passing the car, another car came towards us at great speed. My partner speeded up and moved back into our lane as to avoid any accident we were back in by the 2nd of 3 tow in arrows indicating for traffic in our direction to return to our side of the road . By now a police car was 2 cars behind us and with the car that was being overtook slowed so did the police car. 2 minutes later flashing blue lights. we were being pulled over. My partner was asked to join the police officer in his car and was told that she was being done for driving without due care and attention. he admits that we abided by all road marking and that we didnt even brake the speed limit. So are we being done because the car that was being overtook slowed down to help my partner complete her manouvre? she has only had her licence for 12 months and she has pleaded not guilty and is in court next week. Any help would be much appreciated.The car that was being overtook is also providing evidence saying that if he did not slow down there might of been an accident.

[Roger9]

Sounds like you've got a good defence. It's the speed of the oncoming vehicle that's key. Stress that the road was clear when you started the manouver and as long as the witness agrees that it's speed was excessive then it should be thrown out. Good luck.

[carl573]

thanks, the witness says that "half way through the manouvre when we were level with each other my attention was drawn to a white ford escort van travelling at some speed around the the bend ahead in the opposite direction."

this is written in his statement.

[Dassie]

You are innocent until proven guilty so ask them to produce the evidence seeing as you did not contravene any regulations. In fact turn the tables and state that if that section of road was at all dangerous then why was there no solid white line, as presumably whoever was responsible had worked out that allowing for traffic coming in the opposite direction travelling at the speed allowed it was deemed a long enough stretch to overtake.

[carl573]

Many thanks. Please keep the help coming. My girlfreind has just found out that we are having our first child and needs some reasurances that things will be ok!

[Dassie]

Just another thought......if the police car was 2 cars behind you ask them how, on a country lane, they were able to make that judgement call. They did not have a direct line of vision did they at the time of the so-called offence.Therefore how did the police car know the slowing was for the overtaking manoevre and not something in the road?
Was there anything on the back of your car ( like a big sticker or something of your son's on the back parcel shelf? If so test their powers of observation and ask them to identify it as this will back up the direct line of vision argument.

[Yorkie580]

The definition of 'careless driving' is this:
". . . when the accused's driving falls below the standard expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the circumstances of the case"

It may be that the argument is that your partner should have slowed down rather than speed up, but without the full facts it is hard to say.

Be careful about trying to "turn the tables" without proper legal advice - the police officers will not be expected to justify the reasons for certain road markings on a particular road so you would have to look to call planning officers from the Highways Agency etc. Also the police officers will easily be able to explain why they didn't notice a package etc on your parcel shelf - they were concentrating on the near-accident.

The other person saying they had to slow down to help prevent an accident may actually go against you (it depends on the magistrate) - afterall if your partner hadn't been overtaking it woiuldn't have been necessary anyway.

Was there a camera in the police car? What did your partner say at the time?

Basically, good luck but be careful. More people get treated sympathetically by magistrates when they are honest and explain everything rather than trying to get legally technical.

Courts are well aware that if the defense is attacking the procedures, processes and the witnesses themselves whilst not really mentionning the actual evidence being presented, it's often/sometimes because the evidence is there. Make sure you atek proper advice and represented rather than landing yourself in hot water.

[carl573]

At the point of when the overtaking started the road was clear. It was only half way through that the oncoming car appeared. It also say in the highway code the any cars being overtaken should reduce their speed to assist the passing vehichle. Do you think this will help.
RULE
168
Being overtaken. If a driver is trying to overtake you, maintain a steady course and speed, slowing down if necessary to let the vehicle pass. Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass. Speeding up or driving unpredictably while someone is overtaking you is dangerous. Drop back to maintain a two-second gap if someone overtakes and pulls into the gap in front of you.

copied from http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport /Highwaycode/DG_070314

[Yorkie580]

It depends on how the evidence is presented - the person saw you overtakjing so slowed to assist.... or the person saw that due to your overtaking an accident was likely to occur and slowed to prevent it... as I said, make sure you get proper advice before giving evidence.

Also the highway code isn't law - it quotes law, and can be used in proving offences, but if it says SHOULD the it's good advice, whereas if it says MUST then it's referring to actual legislation. Breaches of the highway code can be used to back up evidencem, but the overiding issue is that your vehilce, by overtaking, put itself in the path of on-coming traffic. It's then for the court to decide whether the incident could have been foreseen. If it was a long stright bit of road it will be viewed very differently to a narrow winding road. Also bear in mind that a speed limit is a limit not a target, and markings on the road indicate that it's lawful to overtake - not that it is safe to at the time - the onus is on the driver to drive safely in the conditions. An extreme example would be on an unrestricted road in heavy fog and ice. It may be lawful to drive at 70mph, it may be lawful to overtake at that point, but it wouldn't be safe.

I knwo I've already said it, but take legal advice prior to legal challenges etc - everyone has heard of the highlighted cases where people have been found not guilty by cleverly challenging evidence and procedures, but the vast majority of people who try that route wihout proper experience fail and can sometime end up with more serious penalties.

[Yorkie580]

Also...

"half way through the manouvre when we were level with each other my attention was drawn to a white ford escort van travelling at some speed around the the bend ahead in the opposite direction."

How far in front was the bend?

[carl573]

it was around 230 metres away when she started to overtake

[Yorkie580]

It'll be for the court to decide if it was safe under the circumstances - they'll look at distance known to be clear ahead, speeds (including your starting speed at the overtake), stopping distances etc.

[carl573]

Many thanks all of you for your help. We have now got ourselves some legal representation from a company of motoring lawyers.