To me it smacks of being under resourced and dealing with a relatively minor incident in a sensible and appropriate manner that probably works well in the vast majority of cases.
2 points to make on that.
99% of the time the Police are not interested in damage only crashes. This goes back to even in my time when we were becoming increasingly agents for the insurers and we were told even back then, if the law has been complied with, the road is not blocked and there are no allegations of a serious traffic offence having been committed, then leave alone. Record the details on an HO/RT6 (brown card minor RTC report) and leave the scene.
But, if they are going to deal with any traffic incident, then at least deal with it properly.
This means conducting the interview properly and appropriately, as soon as the possibility of an offence is suspected then the suspect should be cautioned, all Q & A should be recorded, witness details obtained, all other drivers interviewed and then make an informed opinion as to 1, whether any offences have been committed, and 2, report said persons for any offences with aview to prosecution.
The interview at the scene is in many case the most important ad most relevant because the drivers have not yet had time to think up or make up a story or account of what happened. In other words, any interview conducted at the scene tends to be a more accurate statement than any written section 9 statement several months down the road when they have had time to think about it.
You do not shut the door after the horse has bolted.
This has been dealt with totally arse about face and is NOT a reasonable and fair way of dealing with an incident.
To send out a standard letter as suggested is trying it on and 100% incompetence and lazy perticularly with the implications in respect of insurance claims.
A driver awareness course is not recorded on the DVLA database, but it is none the less a cost that should not be incurred just because of a lack of a proper investigation, and the inference of guilt is wrong.
Contrary to the common myth, we still have the rule of Innocent until proven guilty and the job of the Police is to gather the evidence and then put that evidence before the joke called the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision to be made as to whether a case goes to trial.
They are not judge and jury in these types of cases, so I understand totally where Robsbird is coming from.
The bottom line is that this has not been dealt with in a simple and appropropriate manner. The rules are there for a reason regardless of how serious or minor the nature of the incident is, and these clowns appear to have completely ignored the rules.
Whilst I still have to stand by my original comment regarding the possible outcome if it went to trial, it is still for the Police to prove a case of careless driving beyond all reasonable doubt, and the way they have handled this matter makes me seriously doubt that they can. (just make sure that your video evidence is lost :whi5tl: )
