From experience that is a good result.
The CPS get only so much time in a month per court to deal with traffic offences so they have to pick and choose which ones they can take. Unfortunately in the grand scheme of things this is relatively minor when compared to collisions, so they will rarely get into court.
I agree it's a good result. I also realise that the CPS have a limited budget - but that is
not given in the reponse as a reason for not prosecuting; if it were I might accept it. The reasons that are given seem weak and poorly argued.
I only report incidents to the police where the driver has got out of the car, or abused me in any way. I dont tend to report things like close passes or SMIDSY's because there is no point.
The bottom line is: If there is no collision then the only thing the police do is have a word with the driver.
Sometimes it gets to the stage where you wish he had nudged you just a little, or scraped your arm (not thinking positively I know). But you are always fortunate that he didnt hit you.
Well, you must make your own decisions. I had clear evidence of bad driving and reported it, and I'll do it again. It's looking like "a word" is all that will happen, but we'll see if they can be persuaded to do more.
I must admit, I wouldn't be happy with that. I have a case ongoing of a close pass from a car, where the police were looking to go with careless driving, i.e. probably 3 points. That pass, due to size and speed of it was worse.
Responsibility will only come with increased 'prosecution' of the law IMO.
That's good to hear. I've written back to say that I'm not content with this conclusion, and giving reasons, quoting the CPS guidelines (again) why I think they should prosecute for either dangerous driving or driving without consideration. I suspect they won't, but the fact that they've had to explain to me why not (and I'm not happy with the explanation I've quoted) might concentrate their minds a bit.
And I've nothing to lose - they've already committed themselves to 'having a word' in the presence of the driver's boss, so that'll happen anyway. And he'll have been carpeted by his boss once already, when I first reported it, if First's standard letter is to be believed.
What's the point of having a law, if, when there's clear evidence of it being broken, the appropriate punishment is not sought, let alone applied?!
And the bit "the fact that there was no collision... provides some mitigation" raised my eyebrows somewhat. That implies that any standard of driving is OK, as long as no collision occurs!