Increasingly disillusioned with the police.

[Sara_H]

Perhaps in your view he is, perhaps to him it is not an incident of note given that nothing actually happened.

What did you hope would happen?

Something did happen, he drove blindly into a group of five people on a crowded street who only avoided injury because they ran out of his way. That is driving without due care and attention - the fact that no one was inbjures is neither here nor their.

When the error of his ways was pointed out he was agressive and abusive- threatening behaviour.

The police are going to see him, but as the officer concerned has already made excuses on the drivers behalf and claimed he hasn't done anything wrong I don't expect much.

I also had to push the officer to take down the address of where the incident took place and the names and contact dtails of witnesses.

 

[Sara_H]

He could be done for a public order offence as well, especially when done in front of such young children.

It does appear that the police are not concerned at all with minor offences and more worryingly that the list of "minor offences" is getting larger. I can only assume as police budgets get even smaller the list will get even longer.

This is my concern - that I'm becoming more aware of people "getting away" with minor offences that could have had the potential to be alot more serious.

As I said, its only a few months ago that I 9lone woman on my own) was surrounded by a large group of taxi drivers all threatening and shouting at me - reported to the police - no action taken - how can that be right?

The fact that this man was completely unremorseful - and blamed the children for being on the pavement () makes me very worried.

My reaction would have been shock, horror "is everyone ok?".

 

[GTTTM]

ahh well random van driver driving badly and mouthing off would make a nice change from the parents of PFB's wanting to ensure that their little darlings don't have to walk more than 5 meres to the school gates round here

 

[yello]

Sarah, step back a bit. I understand your anger; at the driver, the incident and the police but you need to look at the position the police are in.

The police have to assume the driver innocent. They cannot promise to prosecute him for you - that's not their decision. In going to talk to him, to hear his side and to assess his attitude, they are doing all that they can at this point.

In focusing on police defending the driver, or embellishing stories, you're only winding yourself up. For all the anger you rightly feel you simply cannot expect anyone to feel the same way. The police will attempt to remain dispassionate... until somebody winds them up! Just hope the driver is true to form and does exactly that!

 

[Sara_H]

Sarah, step back a bit. I understand your anger; at the driver, the incident and the police but you need to look at the position the police are in.

The police have to assume the driver innocent. They cannot promise to prosecute him for you - that's not their decision. In going to talk to him, to hear his side and to assess his attitude, they are doing all that they can at this point.

In focusing on police defending the driver, or embellishing stories, you're only winding yourself up. For all the anger you rightly feel you simply cannot expect anyone to feel the same way. The police will attempt to remain dispassionate... until somebody winds them up! Just hope the driver is true to form and does exactly that!

Of course you're right they have to assume he's inncent -BUT

I would expect them at least to seek the views of witnesses (Ihad to push im to take their details, he says he will only persue them if the driver is aggressive with im.)

And it Really does concern me that he started excusing the drivers beaviour streigt away - by making something up that I hadn't even saidf.

It demonstrates where his prioriteies lay. He wasn't being impartial.

 

[Sara_H]

ahh well random van driver driving badly and mouthing off would make a nice change from the parents of PFB's wanting to ensure that their little darlings don't have to walk more than 5 meres to the school gates round here

Well the precious PFB's (whatever they are) were walking more than 5 meters away from school, on a pavement when they nearly got squished by a transit van.

My son is nearly nine, I'm trying to promote a bit of independace by letting him cross with the crossing lady and meeting him halfway home - I thought it was safe as he had no further roads to croo - hadn't reckoned that I'd have to worry about police condoned pavement drivers.

 

[byegad]

I think you have every right to be upset Sara. The driver did two things wrong, and the police aren't interested, even though you have witnesses.

The Police will doubtless point out how busy they are, and how scarce assets can only be used to prosecute when damage to persons, and/or property can be proved. This is no help, what are you to do? Wait until the same driver does it again, with bad consequences and say 'I told you so'? Sadly from the Officer's reported response that's what he expects you to do.

 

[Noodley]

When the error of his ways was pointed out he was agressive and abusive- threatening behaviour.

Given the highly emotive manner you have posted on here, quite a while after the event, I doubt you will have pointed out the error of his ways in a manner which would elicit any other response.

shoot happens.

Glad all the pedestrians were okay. They may have learned to never take traffic for granted.

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Hi Sara

Sounds like an idiot of a driver, but, from experience, I think getting the police to even “have a chat” is a bit or a result.



On the other hand, you can have a bit of fun and ask for confirmation, in writing of course, that reversing your vehicle along a pavement full of children is ok with the local police – write to them, and cc your MP, saying you were unaware that this was ok, but seeing as local officer (insert name) has said no offence was committed, that you would like to take up this kind of driving and would like conformation in writing just to protect yourself when you start to do it…

 

[mickle]

Given the highly emotive manner you have posted on here, quite a while after the event, I doubt you will have pointed out the error of his ways in a manner which would elicit any other response.

shoot happens.

Glad all the pedestrians were okay. They may have learned to never take traffic for granted.

Eh? Driver reverses at speed along a busy pavement outside a school at home time causing children to flee for their safety.

You classify that as 'shoot happens'?

 

[Crankarm]

Sara,

I am with you on this one. I sympathise. Ignore the others. As much as children can be little sh1ts, great care must taken by drivers driving and cyclists cycling in close proximity to them. As you state blindly reversing along a pavement on which there are people present, let alone children, is totally stupid. It is dangerous. The police should have taken your and other witnesses' statements. The guy should at least be cautioned or sent on a drivers awareness course. If he refuses then you should push the plods to prosecute him. Also he may have committed several public order offences by abusing and threatening you eg s.5 Public Order Act.

You say there were witnesses. Have they made complaints too? If they haven't may I suggest they do as it would be a little harder and potentially more embarrassing for plod to ignore you or fob you off which is what they try and do at every opportunity to avoid doing any work. Then there are their prejudices and excuses which they should not be telling you. They need to investigate incidents properly.

Whilst I believe school entrances and approaches can resemble war zones, numptees like this van driver need to be reminded they need to take additional care driving in the vicinity of schools and children.

Make a complaint to your local police and encourage other parents or adults who witnessed this to do so as well. Maybe there was some CCTV footage that captured the incident.

If you still feel like you are getting nowhere and you see this clown again doing the same thing again, then bang on the back of the van as hard as you can which should sh1t him up. Then went he gets out to abuse or confront you quickly fall on the ground behind the van feigning injury or passing out. This should get the police to attend pretty sharpish and he should crap himself especially if there are witnesses around pointing the finger at him .......... It was HIM!

Sympathies and good luck.

 

[Noodley]

You classify that as 'shoot happens'?

Yep.

It was shiit.
It happened.
shoot happens.

I am not saying the driver was not at fault, but the end result was not serious. The matter was reported, the Police are having a word, I fail to see what else needs to be done. A full scale major inquiry?

SaraH has not yet answered what she was expecting to happen. After all she failed to mention the bit about having a word in the OP...I wonder what else has been missed, omitted or embellished?

 

[yello]

Yes, there are two issues bundled here;

- the drivers actions which, as described by Sarah, nobody has (yet) said are acceptable.
- what the police are doing about it, and they are doing something

I guess the bone of contention then is the 2nd issue. More specifically, whether the police are doing enough. Personally, I think they are doing all they can be realistically expected to at this stage.

 

[Sara_H]

Yep.

It was shiit.
It happened.
shoot happens.

I am not saying the driver was not at fault, but the end result was not serious. The matter was reported, the Police are having a word, I fail to see what else needs to be done. A full scale major inquiry?

SaraH has not yet answered what she was expecting to happen. After all she failed to mention the bit about having a word in the OP...I wonder what else has been missed, omitted or embellished?

I think I answered it way back.

I expected the officer to speak to the witnesses before he started excusing the drivers behaviour. In fact, I don't expect the police to excuse drivers at all.

Yes, he said he's going to speak to the driver, but has admitted to me that it depends on the drivers attitude wether or not he takes formal action. As I said before, I think its ighly unlikely that the driver will kick off when the officer speaks to im, so essentially I anticipate that there will be no formal action.

I think thats wrong, in a situation where many people have witnessed a driver driving carelessly and putting others at risk, and also being threatening to more vulnerable people.

I expected my concerns to be dealt with seriously, investigated properly and I would like to see the driver recieve a caution.

I expected to be taken seriously

 

[Cubist]

Without wanting to put too fine a point on it, no one was hurt. That's very fortunate.

The van driver was wrong to drive the way he did, and to react the way he did when confronted. Very unpleasant.

The police officer you spoke to is faced with a dilemma. You want the van driver to be prosecuted, based on the fact that the children were endangered and the van driver was abusive. There are indeed witnesses, but there were no actual consequence to the driver's actions. No one was hurt.

An enormous number of drivers are not prosecuted for driving carelessly or inconsiderately even when it is glaringly obvious that they are at fault for causing damage or injury to other vehicles or road users. That is not down to the police, that is down to CPS charging standards.

Because it is extremely unlikely that any prosecution would ensue form the circumstances you describe, the officer has (perhaps badly) explained to you the likely outcome.