But if she thought it was inappropriate why didn't the dumb blond drive to the next exit instead of bitching about it after it was also inappropriate speeding with a young child in the car, child safety importance is no different whether speeding or at risk from other traffic.
She's uptight because she was caught

and I ain't taking a self righteous viewpoint here, I drive over the limit on occasions but never with passengers, adult or otherwise.

...

Perhaps the 'dumb blonde' felt intimidated by the flashing blue lights and didn't think clearly. Again, we don't know the facts so can only speculate...

... ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

That's right, its all speculation.
The OP asked a question and we have answered it on the facts given, albeit moved off the topic a bit.

But I say forget it and move on with the knowledge that if there is a next time then do NOT stop but drive to the next safe turn off, and think about your kid when speeding not just after you have been caught.

Last edited by EYorkshire on 23rd Feb 2013 11:03 am. Edited 1 time in total

Thanks all for the replies. My wifes friend was pulled over for doing 98 on the motorway. My question wasnt about the speeding issue (I know thats bad enough), my question was more along the lines of if you are stopped for whatever reason what rights do you have and what can you do/cant do. I myself have a seven year old and if stopped on the motorway I wouldnt like to leave him alone whilst sitting in the police car.

My friends wife has took the points and fine, she was just cross that the traffic officer expected her to leave her 3 year old alone in the car. After the ticket was given apparently the officer got in his car and sped off. I remember years ago when I was done for speeding the officer followed me of the hard should. Black MY2013 SD4 GS Auto, Wood Company Armrest, Freel2 sticker.
Gone MY2010 Freelander 2 Manual TD4.e S, Alaska White.

If she was doing 98, then the concern for the little one wasn't very high anyway. Funny how she got all worried about the child only when pulled over!!

I mentioned feeling the police were been hypercritical in my last post but as much as i dont think it is right to leave a 3 year old in a car on the hard shoulder i would say shes been hypercritical.
Sorry but she has no right to moan as she clearly wasnt thinking bout her child when she was doin 98 mph.In my mind thats just madness and deserves all she gets.

...

steve t wrote:

Sorry but she has no right to moan as she clearly wasnt thinking bout her child when she was doin 98 mph.In my mind thats just madness and deserves all she gets.

So, because the driver (IYO) risked her child's life by speeding, it's then OK to put the child at risk again by leaving her/him in an unattended car on the hard shoulder of a motorway? Just because she's done wrong (speeding) initially doesn't mean that the poor kid is fair game for any further peril... anything else is just odd logic...

... ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

I bet doing 90 on the motorway is safer than doing zero on a hard shoulder  Former Mod/Member, with the most post & Chicken George Arch nemesis

So, you have you're child in the car.
Why would you speed at all?
People are such hypocrites. Some of the worst
Driving I see is outside schools at drop off
Or pick up time.

Now, assuming you're on the hard shoulder
With the police car behind where is the safest place
For you're oh so precious child?
Staying where it is surely. Certainly not being
Transferred to the police car.
Ok, so you have to leave your precious child
In the car while you sit in the back of the police car.
You're child is all alone in your own car for
5 or 10 minutes. What can possible happen
Because you're not with it? If something crashes
Into you whether you we're in the car are not
Will make no difference.

Apologies for formatting. I'm on an iPhone.

...

Stooby... I'm speechless...

...  ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

Why exactly?

One quick thought, when does driving to a safe place on a Motorway become "Failing to stop" and hence a Police chase?

...

stooby wrote:

Why exactly?

Weeellllll...
1. Use of you're, rather than 'your'
2. Again, without the facts... I could argue that a violently ill child might be cause to speed to a hospital perhaps. Life's not so black & white really
3. Drivers at school drop off / pick up ... an irrelevance - not applicable on a motorway hard shoulder
4. How long does it take for a toddler to panic if left alone? I'm pretty bl dy sure that 10 minutes is a long time in that situation and, if it were my child, I certainly would be worrying about that, distracting me from my discussion with the police officer
5. Even people being 'dealt with' by the law (being questioned / charged / on trial / arrested) don't have the normal decencies of life taken away and, in this case, a woman with a small child (although admittedly speeding) does not need to be treated in an offhand way
6. You're on an iphone. Apology accepted ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

bish789 wrote:

One quick thought, when does driving to a safe place on a Motorway become "Failing to stop" and hence a Police chase?

Bl dy good question!

... ...

Be true to yourself. That way happiness lies...

Interesting situation. Nothing terrible happened to the child here in terms of an RTC etc so this is done and dusted but lets put a hypothetical spin on this.

She speeds at 98 with her child on board which in itself leaves her open to criticism. She then pays the price by getting pulled over by the police. If she did cave in to the officers demands (entirely possible that some would) and leaves the child in the car whilst going to sit in the police car, then we have the potential for a major issue.

Lets just say another vehicle lost control and ploughed into her car killing the child. You could have the 'but for' test in place. It could be argued that 'but for' the actions/demands of the police officer, the child would have been with the mother. Although very difficult to prove, the police owe a duty of care to people they deal with and if she could prove that firstly the duty has been breached by the officers actions and that the breach caused the loss, she could sue in negligence. The force would be held vicariously liable for the officers negligence.

The position used to be a blanket no when suggesting that the police could be sued in negligence. Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1988] 2 WLR 1049 House of Lords:

Jacqueline Hill was the final victim of Peter Sutcliffe (the Yorkshire Ripper). He had committed 13 murders and 8 attempted murders over a five year period. Jacqueline' Mother made a claim against the Chief Constable on the grounds that the police had been negligent in their detection and detention of Sutcliffe. The defendant applied to have the claim struck out on the grounds that there was no cause of action since no duty of care was owed by the police in the detection of crime.

This position altered following Osman v UK (although the decision of the ECHR has been criticised). In a nutshell, a teacher became obsessed with a pupil and a distinct lack of earlier police intervention and lack of listening to the family's concerns, led to the teacher going to the pupils house and blowing some of the family away with a shotgun. They tried to sue the police in negligence but the court struck it out as per the blanket no. They successfully appealed to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that the blanket no approach denied them a right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Very difficult to prove and as I say nothing happened here but I felt like going off on a legal tangent. She really cannot claim the moral high ground though if nothing else. LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Last edited by The Doctor on 23rd Feb 2013 6:21 pm. Edited 2 times in total