Wife Cops Neg Driving Charge.....

[Billsta]

Good info there Rob.

It's nice to see there's some support out there.

[RHR]

Good info there Rob.

It's nice to see there's some support out there.

Always keen to help fellow forumites

[Iconic Bionic]

All traffic matters have a statue of limitations of 6 months.. So the Officer in charge of the matter must take some sort of action in the 6 months be it no action or infringement notice or charge.

Police have a certian amount of time to issue infringement notices and generally cant issue them after 2 months.

I think the reason why your wife was charged was because in the minds of police she MAY have not been driving to the conditions hence the neg drive . Dont flame me.

I would take it to court and explain to the magistrate the circumstances behind the incident. Go into detail about the new car that she was not familiar with it. Explain that she had a little one with her and there is no way she would put his/her life in danger. Mention her traffic record and that she has never come under notice before the incident.

Magistrates are aware that Police only have six months to finalise things. If the magistrate thinks the officer has been slack in dealing with the matter the magistrate might just dismiss it.

If you need any more info just pm me mate.

Rob

About time somone wrote something relevant to this persons predicament. No point the rest of us telling him to do this and do that without anything to back it up. The man or his misses will then not know what to do.

I disagree though, I think she is negligent and sorry to say this. No one on here really knows the true circumstances or has any eveidence to dispute the allegation. Its not good enough for ppl to get all fired up on here and say "Take it to court and fight it to the bitter end" without any real experience.

Try not to focus on the lenghty delays or the poor police response your wife recieved and worry more about the fact all survived which does not always happen.

Good luck with it all.

I.B.

[tab]

This really fukin hurts, but

Again without knowing the full story and without being there myself, I’d suggest that she wasn’t driving to the conditions which in turn suggests some amount of negligence. Yes I realise that the drain was blocked and all, but was she traveling too fast to not be able to stop upon seeing the water on the road?

It certainly is a bitter pill to swallow, but just remember your wife could walk out of the courtroom worse off than what she is now.

I’ll be off now......

[aniken]

I doubt the 'I'd never used cruise control in the rain before' argument will get you very far. In fact, it almost proves the negligent charge for them, so I wouldn't mention it at all. A licensed driver has a responsibility to know about these things before they start the engine and drive the car on a public road (its called duty of care). Stick to the flooded road explanation.

Edited 04/06/07 11:06 AM by aniken

[Guest FatBAt]

Here is a clause from the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 No 20

Clause 42 / 2: Negligent, furious or reckless driving

In considering whether an offence has been committed under this section, the court is to have regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the following:

(a) the nature, condition and use of the road or road related area on which the offence is alleged to have been committed,

(b) the amount of traffic that actually is at the time, or which might reasonably be expected to be, on the road or road related area.

Police may think that they can just disregard evidence that water was flowing over the road but 42a says even the courts can't disregard it. You say it was...and have the smashed car to prove it. What do the police have?

Just because your wife was not sure how to use cruise control is irrelevant. The fact that she took precausions and slowed down (albeit to late) is enough to say she was not negligent. As the Act says..."the court is to have regard to all the circumstances of the case..."

I say (with an Act that is in force) take it to court but with a solicitor. If you start quoting an Act to a Magistrate, you are going to come across arrogant and you don't want get under his skin.

Cheers

[RegSpec]

Ok, next question......can anyone recommend a solicitor in Southern Sydney who specialises in traffic matters?

[Guest FatBAt]

Ok, next question......can anyone recommend a solicitor in Southern Sydney who specialises in traffic matters?

Most of the larger law firms have solicitor's that specialise in whatever your enquiry. They may be a little more expensive but you do get what you pay for.

Your initial enquiry, whomever you speak with is usually free of charge. After you give him/her the facts, they should tell you whether it is worth fighting. If THEY are confident that you'll win, you probally will.

Keep us informed because I think this is just another one of those incidents where police have barstardised the system.

Good luck BionicXR6T

Cheers

PS One thing that I just thought of. Try and get a statement from the off duty police seargent to say how the extent of the water was over the road. It shouldn't be a conflict of interest because he is not saying whether you are right or wrong, just what the road conditions WERE at the time of the accident.

Edited 10/06/07 09:11 PM by FatBAt

[sixfan]

I doubt the 'I'd never used cruise control in the rain before' argument will get you very far. In fact, it almost proves the negligent charge for them, so I wouldn't mention it at all. A licensed driver has a responsibility to know about these things before they start the engine and drive the car on a public road (its called duty of care). Stick to the flooded road explanation.

Spot on.

Negligent or not...Who-knows? Is a flooded road beyond what a resonable person could expect? I don't know... Were there "road flooded signs" before the crossing? Up here the roads flood every wet season and if you spin-off the road... hard-luck, but that's the NT, you're expected to know the roads flood every year.

A camera can be worth it's weight in gold in situations like this.

Fight it. We all make mistakes and if the police were there to witness all of mine, I'd have no licence.

your argument is simple, excessive water over the road due to the blocked drain, see if old mate who was there just after can corroborate the story.

P.S I got a neg driving charge for hooking my old datsun round a tight left-hander, it was worth it seeing the look on the two police who were returning a tricycle just before they ran off the road out of my way. I was lucky they had a sense of humor!

[Iconic Bionic]

Keep us informed because I think this is just another one of those incidents where police have barstardised the system.

Good luck BionicXR6T

Cheers

PS One thing that I just thought of. Try and get a statement from the off duty police seargent to say how the extent of the water was over the road. It shouldn't be a conflict of interest because he is not saying whether you are right or wrong, just what the road conditions WERE at the time of the accident.

Oh settle down there on your first paragraph!

And dont bother with the statement from the off duty sarge. I agree its unlikely to be a conflict of interest but he is likely to have other higher obligations to his position. If your desperate for his evidence, just issue a subpoena instead.

And theres only one bloke in Sydney I would ever want to represent me on a traffic matter, and I cant remember his damn name. His based in North Sydney and is well known for a number of succesfull matters against speed cameras and the RTA. Which is also likely to make him expansive.

Way it up, whats neg drive - about $300 vs principle???