Driver on the phone

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

Personally dilemna I'm with you. The driver was breaking the law and could have killed someone; if the police can't be bothered to do anything about it then they're a waste of taxes and just as bad.

Have you thought about reporting the driver to your council? You may get a more favourable response.

How can the police do anything without evidence?

By Dilema refusing to provide his own details he is denying the police access to evidence- ie the details of the sole witness to an alleged crime.

What do you expect the police to do if you are witholding the evidence to a crime?

Quite. First I was providing information on a driver committing traffic offences not on an act committed against me. The response of the officer and how he dealt with me was poor. This was more troubling than anything. The officer did not show any inclination of wanting to assist let alone apprehend the driver with or without my details. He merely came out with excuses. I know when I am being fobbed off or some one doesn't want to be helpful. I think we can all recognise that. The information I did give him was more than sufficient to follow the driver license number, firm name, description of the driver, offer of pics and that CCTV is operation. He probably binned the scrap of paper on which he wrote some of what I told him after I had walked out the door. What hope is there when there are people like that in the police force? Not all officers are like this but the number of helpful ones I have encountered over the years I could count on one hand. The police officer could have been much more proactive. He could have shown some interest and finished up by thanking me for taking the time to report the incident rather being so uncooperative. The police still have a very long way to go in interacting and gaining the trust and support of the public.

Previously I have been witness to brawl/riot and gave a statement despite the distressing nature of what I saw and that a young child was involved. I gave evidence to help the child. I did not want to though as I feared for my own safety from the defendants and their associates, but the police and CPS both said I would be well looked after. However on having doubts last minute the CPS said they would sub-poena me if I did not attend court. They would send a police officer to my work to collect me. Anyway I spent 2 days waiting at court as a witness with the defendants' families milling around me. I was given no assistance as I was led to believe to encourage me to give evidence as a witness. I was very anxious wondering whether I would be attacked away from court or have my home or property damaged. In court when I gave my evidence it was a farce as I was aggressively questioned despite being told I wouldn't be as the police would be giving evidence as well. The arresting officers whose evidence was pivotal never turned up. The defendants were found not guilty.

So before you start telling me what I should and shouldn't have done or that I was wrong or contributed to the how the desk officer treated me or it was my fault, that I am concealing something therefore I am a suspicious or malevolent person - I AM NOT. I saw some wrong doing I wanted to report it. Perhaps if I do job of the police they will come and do mine? I am just a regular guy trying to make good and get along as best I can in this f****d up world where the people who are supposed to be the good guys to help and sort stuff out for us often turn out to be the bad guys or just don't give a sh1t. I didn't see anyone else rushing to the police station to report what they had seen. Hang on a minute let me check my back for hoof marks as I was flattened by witnesses stampeding to the cop shop. Who the frig do you think you guys are? From feeling I am being the good citizen reporting a taxi driver using a mobile phone whilst driving I am pilloried by some on here. Well I should tell you where to get off! To the few that agree with me and are obviously NOT cops or in the employ of them I salute you, have a drink on me and also to the OP.

guilliano

I still don't get the refusal to give personal details.... or am I missing something here? If you have ever called 999 they will always ask for details of the caller before proceding. If it is a major crime they may send someone to the vicinity of the reported incident without the callers details, but if you called to report a cat up a tree they wouldn't bother sending out the fire brigade, even if you offered to e-mail them a pic as proof, without your own details.

I once called 999 after getting a call from a friend who had severe depression. She had taken an overdose and then got very scared and called me to tell me where she was. I lived 100 or so miles from her, so couldn't get there myself. I called 999, explained the situation, but had to give quite a lot of personal detail before they could do anything. If I hadn't given my name, address, date of birth, mobile and home numbers, details of how I knew the person, her name, age, address and whereabouts she would not have had an ambulance turn up and would now be dead.

Now tell me again why you should refuse to give personal details when reporting something?

bompington

dilemna, I didn't notice anyone "pillorying" you, simply people pointing out that by refusing to go along with the police's (admittedly annoying) procedures, your (otherwise very reasonable) argument loses a good deal of its force.

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

Personally dilemna I'm with you. The driver was breaking the law and could have killed someone; if the police can't be bothered to do anything about it then they're a waste of taxes and just as bad.

Have you thought about reporting the driver to your council? You may get a more favourable response.

How can the police do anything without evidence?

By Dilema refusing to provide his own details he is denying the police access to evidence- ie the details of the sole witness to an alleged crime.

What do you expect the police to do if you are witholding the evidence to a crime?

He offered pictures and there was CCTV in the area why is that not evidence? If a murder is committed to the police need a witness or do they go out and search for evidence?

Is there a sliding scale of seriousness that the police use to decide whether or not to follow an incident up? If so then what crimes can I get away with assuming no-one is watching?

how is the picture going to become evidence?

Where is the evidence of who took the picture, when it was taken etc?

Without the person who took the phot providing a statement and being available tobe cross examined in court, then the evidence is in admissible as hearsay.

The points I raised earlier apply



Do you really expect the police to spend as much money investigating a (effectively anonymous)report of someone using a mobile phone when driving as they would an actual murder where they have a body?
If so, expect your tax rate to go up from 20% to 99.99999999999% to fund this

spen666

simple_salmon wrote:

I understand how a 'victim' would perhaps need to leave details but surely the crime itself is the driving offence and as such can be followed up without a victim?

Why set up laws if the police can't be bothered/don't have the resources to deal with them?

The police were apparently happy to deal with it, it was the member of the public who refused to provide the evidence, but expected the incident to be reported.

It is wholly un realistic to expect the police to investigate your report of a minor incident if you are not prepared to assist them.

Remember an accused person is entitled to a fair trial - ie to be able to x-examine his accuser

spen666

dilemna wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

Personally dilemna I'm with you. The driver was breaking the law and could have killed someone; if the police can't be bothered to do anything about it then they're a waste of taxes and just as bad.

Have you thought about reporting the driver to your council? You may get a more favourable response.

How can the police do anything without evidence?

By Dilema refusing to provide his own details he is denying the police access to evidence- ie the details of the sole witness to an alleged crime.

What do you expect the police to do if you are witholding the evidence to a crime?

Quite. First I was providing information on a driver committing traffic offences not on an act committed against me. The response of the officer and how he dealt with me was poor. This was more troubling than anything. The officer did not show any inclination of wanting to assist let alone apprehend the driver with or without my details.

Erm without providing details, you are denying the police evidence to prosecute a case.

If they are not able to prosecutte, then what is the point in investigating this spurious report from someone who clearly has something to hide.

Have you ever thought how many hoax calls/ allegations are made every day to the emergency services? As well as prviding witness details, the need to provide your details also helps reduce the wasted time and money caused by hoax calls

He merely came out with excuses. I know when I am being fobbed off or some one doesn't want to be helpful. I think we can all recognise that. The information I did give him was more than sufficient to follow the driver license number, firm name, description of the driver, offer of pics and that CCTV is operation.

It was indeed, but or what purpose would the police want to trace said driver?

....Erm Mr X we are here because we have no evidence of anything, so have a nice day now....

Police are powerless to take action if you withold the NECESSARY evidence.

He probably binned the scrap of paper on which he wrote some of what I told him after I had walked out the door.

He may well have done because it discloses no course of action . You refuse to provide the NECESSARY evidence

What hope is there when there are people like that in the police force? Not all officers are like this but the number of helpful ones I have encountered over the years I could count on one hand. The police officer could have been much more proactive.

change the word police in the above section for "member of the public and it reads more accurately

He could have shown some interest and finished up by thanking me for taking the time to report the incident rather being so uncooperative.

You have NOT reported an incident though. You refused to make a full report. Effectively you were wasting the time of the police

The police still have a very long way to go in interacting and gaining the trust and support of the public.

Previously I have been witness to brawl/riot and gave a statement despite the distressing nature of what I saw and that a young child was involved. I gave evidence to help the child. I did not want to though as I feared for my own safety from the defendants and their associates, but the police and CPS both said I would be well looked after. However on having doubts last minute the CPS said they would sub-poena me if I did not attend court. They would send a police officer to my work to collect me. Anyway I spent 2 days waiting at court as a witness with the defendants' families milling around me. I was given no assistance as I was led to believe to encourage me to give evidence as a witness. I was very anxious wondering whether I would be attacked away from court or have my home or property damaged. In court when I gave my evidence it was a farce as I was aggressively questioned despite being told I wouldn't be as the police would be giving evidence as well. The arresting officers whose evidence was pivotal never turned up. The defendants were found not guilty.

So before you start telling me what I should and shouldn't have done or that I was wrong or contributed to the how the desk officer treated me or it was my fault, that I am concealing something therefore I am a suspicious or malevolent person - I AM NOT. I saw some wrong doing I wanted to report it. Perhaps if I do job of the police they will come and do mine? I am just a regular guy trying to make good and get along as best I can in this f****d up world where the people who are supposed to be the good guys to help and sort stuff out for us often turn out to be the bad guys or just don't give a sh1t. I didn't see anyone else rushing to the police station to report what they had seen. Hang on a minute let me check my back for hoof marks as I was flattened by witnesses stampeding to the cop shop. Who the frig do you think you guys are? From feeling I am being the good citizen reporting a taxi driver using a mobile phone whilst driving I am pilloried by some on here. Well I should tell you where to get off! To the few that agree with me and are obviously NOT cops or in the employ of them I salute you, have a drink on me and also to the OP.

No one is telling you what you should or shouldn't do. People are telling you how the legal system works and what is needed before a prosecution can be mounted.

BTW I am most certainly not a police officer or in the employ of them. I have spent nearly every day of my working life opposing the police and their actions

softlad

dilemna wrote:

So before you start telling me what I should and shouldn't have done or that I was wrong or contributed to the how the desk officer treated me or it was my fault, that I am concealing something therefore I am a suspicious or malevolent person - I AM NOT.

You were 'concealing' your name. Without your name, a proper complaint cannot be made, which means the incident cannot be investigated.

You seem to want it both ways - there's no point complaining about 'useless coppers' while at the same time not giving them the info they need to do their jobs properly...

Anonymous

Dilemna - how would you like it if you jumped a red light (inadvertantly, obviously) on your bike and were prosecuted because some random witness told the police, there was CCTV / images that were unsupported with time and date information and no other evidence offered yet you were summonsed to court?

You'd be spitting chips and complaining that the police should have something better to do, questioning why the person made the report etc. etc.

dilemna

First I don't RLJ so it wouldn't happen. Camera evidence is now used to show not only drivers speeding, but those RLJing and using phones whilst driving am I right? There is no one making a complaint.
Secondly this thread is now boring me. I've tried to relate what happened when I went into the cop shop. The topic of this thread was drivers using mobile phones whilst driving. There has been little discussion of that from you guys so far. When reading the posts subsequent to my last I had this image of a bucket full of brown smelly stuff in my mind. As I say this thread is now boring me, I'm done with it. Salut!

guilliano

Oh no..... someone can't handle the fact that they weren't completely in the right and storms off in a huff shocker!!!

Nobody has said the taxi driver was in the right, just that if you wanted the complaint to be taken seriously you shouldn't have gotten all indignant about giving your name and address as this prevents the police from doing their job

cougie

Blimey - there are some thick people arent there ?

Give your details and save us from three pages of your pitiful whining.

As for the flounce - I'm only giving you 6/10.

simple_salmon

I'm sorry but I'm still with dilemna; if a photo can be used against a speeding driver or someone parked illegally without a witness then why not for a driver using a mobile phone.

Why is the date and time unverifiable? Most CCTV cameras would provide this evidence.

Spen666 - you will need to explain to me again why a photo from an anonymous witness cannot be submitted as evidence. Are traffic cameras considered witnesses?

bompington

It's not a question of anonymous witnesses and the legality of prosecution, etc. I'd have thought that it was simple common sense, not to mention courtesy, that if you want the police to cooperate with you, you should cooperate with them. How hard can that be?

simple_salmon

I'm assuming dilemna had a reason for being anonymous - that's not discourteous it's his business.

Are we to assume then that the police will only investigate crimes where someone has been polite to them - is this how far we've come?

A crime was committed - however minor a law was broken; photographic evidence was offered anonymously; the police showed little interest.

I'm aware I'm in a minority but it seems a pretty poor state of affairs to me when people get away with POTENTIALLY life threatening behaviour because a) the witness who didn't do anything wrong didn't want to say who he was and b) lawyers argue that photographic proof isn't evidence.

Who are we supporting the criminal or the public?

bompington

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm assuming dilemna had a reason for being anonymous - that's not discourteous it's his business.

Are we to assume then that the police will only investigate crimes where someone has been polite to them - is this how far we've come?

A crime was committed - however minor a law was broken; photographic evidence was offered anonymously; the police showed little interest.

I'm aware I'm in a minority but it seems a pretty poor state of affairs to me when people get away with POTENTIALLY life threatening behaviour because a) the witness who didn't do anything wrong didn't want to say who he was and b) lawyers argue that photographic proof isn't evidence.

Who are we supporting the criminal or the public?

It depends if you are taking a moral campaigning stance or a pragmatic one. To use what may seem like an irrelevant comparison, my new puppy ran off to play with the nearby farmer's chickens yesterday; it really sticks in your craw, but I had to praise him fulsomely when he came back - because that's what you need to do to get the result (make him come when called).
Or to put it another way, it seems a pretty poor state of affairs to me that I had to swerve violently the other day to avoid an idiot driver who would otherwise have killed me. So are you trying to say that I shouldn't have swerved?

simple_salmon

I don't get the comparison. The police are paid by the public to do a job - given that dilemna wasn't rude or aggressive (I'm assuming) then they should do it.

I don't understand your point about swerving :oops:

cee

Don't get me wrong, I find my bile rising when I see folks using a phone (or applying make up, dealing with kids in the back, reading maps etc) whilst driving.

I think the dealing with kids one is difficult, but my thoughts are that the driver should pull over to deal with them properly rather than reacing back for toys etc.....

So in that regard, I totally agree with the OP.

I still do not understand why no details were given, but perhaps a clue lies in the way that you were treated as a witness previously, and in that regard I can understand your reasons.

On the 'why photos taken by random members of the public are not admissable as evidence' I believe is something to do with the chain of evidence. I am pretty sure it could be included as circumstancial, but no more (if even that, remember that fingerprints at a scene are only circumstancial on their own....they have to be coupled with other evidence).

bompington

S_S - the point of my comparisons is this:
Sometimes other people, unlike ourselves of course, are less than perfect. That means they do things wrong sometimes.
You can either get all hot under the collar about it, or you can try and think of ways to get them to behave the way you want (the puppy); or adapt your own behaviour so that you benefit, or do not lose out, even when someone else is doing the wrong thing (the swerve).
To sum up:
- The driver was a plonker and clearly should have had the book thrown at him
- Plod was unprofessional, unhelpful and generally a plonker too
- But who knows, perhaps complying with the (bog-standard) request for personal details might have brought about a totally different outcome?

simple_salmon

I agree with you on all points bompington.

I think the reason for getting so upset from my PoV is that the mobile phone thing happens SO OFTEN on every journey that it is really galling to to think that so many people are illegally putting our lives at risk and it seems that nothing is ever done about it, even when someone takes the time and effort to report it.

That really gets my goat.

My earlier points were really directed at the question of why it is so important to get the details of the witness - over and above those of the criminal. IMHO we are living in a mixed up world and that makes me very very sad.

Anonymous

A 'crime' was not commited, a minor road traffic offence was, yes it was minor no matter what the consequences, i.e. the penalty would be points / fine.

CCTV times and dates are not admissable, they need to be supported by a witness. The cameras used for speeding / RLJing have to be ratified by the home office and have to show certain information which CCTV cameras do not. Otherwise we'd have someone sat there watching cameras all day reporting thousands of offences an completely clogging the justice system.

The taxi driver could simply say he was not on the phone and without supporting evidence the case would be thrown out. In fact the CPS wouldn't even run it.

Due to the Human Right to a Fair Trial procedures have to be followed or there will be no case to answer.

However, it still really p*sses me off when I see a driver on the phone or driving badly, just like it does everyone else.


Furthermore I'm not defending the judicial system, it really p*sses me off too! I'm just stating 'how it is.'

simple_salmon

Thanks for that ND; I'll not shoot the messenger

chuckcork

simple_salmon wrote:

I understand how a 'victim' would perhaps need to leave details but surely the crime itself is the driving offence and as such can be followed up without a victim?

Why set up laws if the police can't be bothered/don't have the resources to deal with them?

Laws are created not necessarily to be enforced but to provide guidance.

At least that seems to be the case with speed limits as far as I can figure out, travel at the speed limit on the A3 and outside of London and speed cameras, and you'll be soon about teh slowest thing on the road, with the rest of the traffic wizzing by at speed limit+10-20mph.

I don't think enforcing traffic law would cause the police problems with its relations with the public, I think the lack of enforcement leads the law to be treated with contempt, certainly seems to be the case with traffic law!

Anonymous

Why don't you just find out the name of the firm and have a week of phoning them up on bogus jobs, say a pick up the other side of town etc. Spend a week doing this and then phone up and tell 'em that a taxi number blah blah blah, nearly had you off in sainsburys car park and gave you grief. hopefully that will get him right in the poo.

Or just keep an eye out for him and batter him.

Anonymous

When I say batter him, I meant like a fish, not in a violent way at all.

dag_on_a_bike

NapoleonD wrote:

A 'crime' was not commited, a minor road traffic offence was, yes it was minor no matter what the consequences, i.e. the penalty would be points / fine.

I don't condone the use of a mobile phone while driving (or cycling). Indeed it really peeves me, just like failure to use indicators; too many drivers seem to regard them as decorations.

However, I don't agree to the above comment. No crime was committed and no minor road traffic offence was committed either.

A Sainsbury's car park is not a highway (road) and nor is a car park on public land. A highway is very specifically defined by statute, and to the best of my understanding the law governing use of mobile phones is the Road Traffic Act 1988 (as amended) would not embrace car parks, per se.

Anonymous

DAG, there is a stated case involving this matter (Cutter v Eagle Star), in certain circumstances certain offences can be commited in a car park...

Monmouth

dilemna wrote:

TD : "WTF has got to do with you!" (Putting down his phone and putting on his seat belt)
Me : "It has everything to do with me as you narrowly missed knocking me off and you are a danger to other road users. When using your phone you are less aware of other road users and less able to control your car as you have just clearly shown as you nearly knocked me off. I don't care if you go through the windscreen but I do if you injure me".

No offence dude but its a wonder the taxi driver didn't fall asleep at that lecture.

I usually find a short sharp "get off that phone you ******* ****" usually does the trick.

de_sisti

I did the Forest of Dean Sportive yesterday. As I was loading my bike onto the bike carrier,
I saw one of the riders who participated, conduct a conversation on his mobile phone as
he drove his car out of the car park down the road. :roll: I felt like trying to alert him to his
behaviour, but couldn't be bothered in the end.

Monmouth

maander wrote:

I did the Forest of Dean Sportive yesterday. As I was loading my bike onto the bike carrier,
I saw one of the riders who participated conduct a conversation on his mobile phone as
he drove his car out of the car park down the road. :roll: I felt like trying to alert him to his
behaviour, but couldn't be bothered in the end.

As I've often said when you get cyclsts vs drivers shullbit, it 'aint the mode of transport, its the person.

There are rissoles who ride bikes as there are who drive cars.

dag_on_a_bike

NapoleonD wrote:

DAG, there is a stated case involving this matter (Cutter v Eagle Star), in certain circumstances certain offences can be commited in a car park...

The case you refer to was a civil action and not a criminal one. It did not deal with an offence but a civil action for damages. The interpretation of the law in civil cases is entirely different.

An offence can only be such within the definition of the legislation. A road/highway is defined by statute and offences can only be sucessfully prosecuted by breach of the relevant legislation.

There are many instances of 'offenders' escaping conviction because the letter of the law, not its intent, applies.

That does not dilute the fact that one should not use a mobile phone while driving (which in itself is a defined act), whether an offence is committed or not.